Texas A&M
Northern Illinois
Purdue
Miami (OH)
Louisville
Stanford
Georgia Tech
Navy
Florida State
Virginia
Army
USC
Indiana
Georgia
Penn State
Ohio StateFour-year talent direction
Track class strength, position balance and roster needs across signing cycles.
STATTAKE DATABASEFIND ANY TEAM OR PLAYER
Independent • FBS TEAM DATABASE
Notre Dame
Complete schedules, team production, player statistics, news, analytics, recruiting and program history in one fan destination.
2024 SEASON DATABASE
Notre Dame football
Record: 14–2 (Schedule & Results)
Conference: Independent
Players: 80
Points For: 578
Points/Game: 36.1
Points Against: 248
Opp. Points/Game: 15.5
2024 SEASON
LIVE SCOREBOARD →Schedule & results
OFFICIAL SCHEDULE FEEDOpponent names and logos open team pages. Dates and results open StatTake box scores.
WEEKOPPONENTLOCATIONGAME
WEEK 5BYE——
WEEK 9BYE——
WEEK 10BYE——
WEEK 12BYE——
POSTSEASONBOWL & PLAYOFF GAMES
TEAM PRODUCTION
Team stats
Season totals organized for quick comparison. Swipe horizontally for more.
2024 SEASON TOTALS
ALL GAMESOffense at a glance
| PASS CMP | PASS ATT | PASS YDS | PASS % | PASS AVG | PASS TD | PASS INT | PASS RTG | SACK | RUSH ATT | RUSH YDS | RUSH AVG | RUSH TD | REC | REC YDS | REC AVG | REC TD | PTS/G |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 296 | 442 | 3,170 | 67.0 | 7.2 | 24 | 8 | 141.5 | 0 | 555 | 3,235 | 5.8 | 45 | 296 | 3,170 | 10.7 | 24 | 36.1 |
TEAM ANALYTICS CENTER
OPEN NATIONAL ANALYTICS →Notre Dame analytics
LOADING 2024 EPA METRICS
The verified team snapshot is loading now.
2024 COMPLETE TEAM ROSTER
PLAYER PROFILES →Individual player statistics
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Passing
| PLAYER | CMP | ATT | YDS | CMP% | AVG | TD | INT | RTG | SACK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. LeonardQB | 269 | 403 | 2861 | 66.7 | 7.1 | 21 | 8 | 139.6 | — |
| S. AngeliQB | 24 | 36 | 268 | 66.7 | 7.4 | 3 | 0 | 156.7 | — |
| T. BuchnerWR | 1 | 1 | 23 | 100.0 | 23.0 | 0 | 0 | 293.2 | — |
| D. SherwoodTE | 1 | 1 | 14 | 100.0 | 14.0 | 0 | 0 | 217.6 | — |
| K. MincheyQB | 1 | 1 | 4 | 100.0 | 4.0 | 0 | 0 | 133.6 | — |
| TEAM TOTALS | 296 | 442 | 3,170 | 67.0 | 7.2 | 24 | 8 | 141.5 | 0 |
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Rushing
| PLAYER | CAR | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | FUM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. LoveRB | 163 | 1125 | 6.9 | 98 | 17 | — |
| R. LeonardQB | 184 | 906 | 4.9 | 50 | 17 | — |
| J. PriceRB | 120 | 746 | 6.2 | 70 | 7 | — |
| A. WilliamsRB | 34 | 219 | 6.4 | 58 | 2 | — |
| K. YoungRB | 21 | 116 | 5.5 | 12 | 1 | — |
| D. FordRB | 13 | 55 | 4.2 | 11 | 0 | — |
| J. ThomasWR | 3 | 27 | 9.0 | 18 | 0 | — |
| K. MincheyQB | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 7 | 1 | — |
| J. FaisonWR | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 6 | 0 | — |
| S. AngeliQB | 9 | 9 | 1.0 | 29 | 0 | — |
| J. FisherTE | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 | — |
| T. BuchnerWR | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 | — |
| J. TafelskiRB | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 0 | — |
| TEAM TOTALS | 555 | 3,235 | 5.8 | 98 | 45 | 0 |
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Receiving
| PLAYER | REC | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. GreathouseWR | 42 | 592 | 14.1 | 54 | 4 |
| B. CollinsWR | 41 | 490 | 12.0 | 53 | 3 |
| M. EvansTE | 43 | 421 | 9.8 | 33 | 3 |
| J. FaisonWR | 30 | 356 | 11.9 | 44 | 1 |
| J. LoveRB | 28 | 237 | 8.5 | 32 | 2 |
| K. MitchellWR | 22 | 224 | 10.2 | 28 | 2 |
| J. HarrisonWR | 19 | 211 | 11.1 | 42 | 1 |
| A. WilliamsRB | 18 | 172 | 9.6 | 36 | 0 |
| J. ThomasWR | 18 | 167 | 9.3 | 23 | 2 |
| E. RaridonTE | 11 | 90 | 8.2 | 14 | 2 |
| C. FlanaganTE | 4 | 55 | 13.8 | 28 | 2 |
| D. ColzieWR | 5 | 41 | 8.2 | 15 | 1 |
| K. SmithWR | 3 | 38 | 12.7 | 25 | 0 |
| D. SherwoodTE | 1 | 19 | 19.0 | 19 | 0 |
| J. FisherTE | 1 | 16 | 16.0 | 16 | 0 |
| J. TafelskiRB | 1 | 14 | 14.0 | 14 | 0 |
| P. CooganOL | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 11 | 0 |
| J. PriceRB | 4 | 10 | 2.5 | 8 | 0 |
| K. BaumanTE | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 8 | 1 |
| D. FordRB | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 6 | 0 |
| R. LeonardQB | 1 | -8 | -8.0 | 0 | 0 |
| TEAM TOTALS | 296 | 3,170 | 10.7 | 54 | 24 |
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Defense
| PLAYER | TOT | SOLO | AST | TFL | SACK | INT | PD | FF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. KiserLB | 90 | 55 | — | 5 | 2 | — | 1 | — |
| X. WattsS | 83 | 53 | — | 3.5 | 0 | 6 | 9 | — |
| D. BowenLB | 78 | 40 | — | 4.0 | 1 | — | 2 | — |
| A. ShulerS | 59 | 36 | — | 3 | 0 | 3 | 5 | — |
| J. AusberryLB | 56 | 33 | — | 5.5 | 0.5 | — | 1 | — |
| J. SneedLB | 51 | 22 | — | 6.0 | 2.5 | — | 0 | — |
| L. MooreCB | 48 | 34 | — | 2 | 0 | 2 | 11 | — |
| K. Viliamu-AsaLB | 38 | 9 | — | 3.0 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | — |
| R. Heard IIS | 37 | 25 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | — |
| R. MillsDL | 37 | 19 | — | 8.5 | 7.5 | — | 0 | — |
| J. ClarkS | 36 | 28 | — | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | — |
| C. GrayCB | 35 | 26 | — | 2.5 | 0 | 3 | 9 | — |
| D. HinishDL | 34 | 19 | — | 4 | 4 | — | 1 | — |
| J. TuihalamakaDL | 32 | 18 | — | 6.0 | 3.0 | 1 | 1 | — |
| J. BurnhamDL | 30 | 16 | — | 6.5 | 2 | — | 1 | — |
| H. Cross IIIDL | 27 | 13 | — | 4.5 | 4 | — | 1 | — |
| G. RubioDL | 24 | 12 | — | 2.5 | 1 | — | 1 | — |
| B. YoungDL | 23 | 14 | — | 3.0 | 1.5 | — | 0 | — |
| B. MorrisonCB | 20 | 14 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 3 | — |
| L. TalichS | 20 | 14 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — |
| R. ObenDL | 19 | 10 | — | 1.5 | 1 | — | 0 | — |
| M. HurlemanCB | 13 | 11 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| B. TraoreDL | 12 | 9 | — | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | — |
| J. BotelhoDL | 12 | 5 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — |
| K. UrlacherS | 12 | 7 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| B. MinichDB | 8 | 5 | — | 0.5 | 0.5 | — | 1 | — |
| J. OnyeDL | 7 | 4 | — | 1.5 | 1.5 | — | 1 | — |
| L. ThomasDL | 7 | 4 | — | 1.5 | 1.5 | — | 0 | — |
| P. ZinterTE | 5 | 5 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| A. MukamDL | 4 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. HarrisonWR | 4 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| S. Sevillano Jr.DL | 4 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| B. JohnsonS | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. MickeyDB | 3 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| A. KrosLS | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| D. SherwoodTE | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| G. RistoffDL | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. FaisonWR | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| K. HobbsDB | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| M. JeterPK | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| A. CraigOL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| B. KahounLB | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| B. VernonDL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| C. SalernoPK | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| D. ColzieWR | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| D. HoustanOL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| D. FordRB | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| E. GoinsPK | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. PriceRB | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. GreathouseWR | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. LoveRB | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. VinciLS | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| K. KiaLB | 1 | 0 | — | 0.5 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| K. OnyiukeDL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| M. GilbertWR | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| P. CooganOL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. RezacLB | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. PowlusLB | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. ReaderLB | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. ChanOL | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| TEAM TOTALS | 1,003 | 597 | 0 | 87 | 40 | 19 | 61 | 0 |
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Kicking & Scoring
| PLAYER | FGM | FGA | FG% | XPM | XPA | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M. JeterPK | 13 | 21 | — | 54 | 54 | 93 |
| M. JefferyWR | 3 | 3 | — | 2 | 2 | 11 |
| Z. YoakamPK | 2 | 5 | — | 18 | 18 | 24 |
| E. GoinsPK | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| M. DiomedePK | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| TEAM TOTALS | 18 | 30 | 60.0 | 75 | 76 | 129 |
TEAM NEWS + STATTAKE ARTICLES
ALL CFB NEWS →Latest Notre Dame coverage
NATIONAL UPDATE
Texas: ESPN ranks Top 25 teams with highest chance to make College Football Playof…
Week 3 of the 2026 college football season is complete. ESPN’s Allstate Playoff Predictor machine updated its Playoff outlook. The College Football Playoff race continues to take shape as teams begin moving deeper into conference play. ESPN’s Allstate Playoff Predictor has updated Key points from the original article: 1. Texas — 85% 2. Notre Dame — 81% 3. Miami — 78% 4. Georgia — 75% 5. Ohio State — 69% 6. Indiana — 64% 7. Alabama — 59% 8. Texas Tech — 43% 9. Ole Miss — 41% 10. Penn State — 39% 11. Utah — 35% 12. Tennessee — 33% 13. Florida — 26% 14. Michigan — 24% 15. Louisville — 22% 16. Oregon — 21% 17. Mississippi State — 20% 18. Boise State — 19% 19. James Madison — 19% 20. Pittsburgh — 18% 21. Nebraska — 17% 22. Kansas State — 16%
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATENOTRE DAME FOOTBALL: Injury report and depth charts for Purdue Boilermakers.
NOTRE DAME FOOTBALL: Injury report and depth charts for Purdue Boilermakers. Notre Dame released its injury report and depth charts for the Purdue game, and one new name is questionable.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATENotre Dame football news: The big mistake that had Marcus Freeman mad.
Notre Dame football news: The big mistake that had Marcus Freeman mad. On Saturday, the Notre Dame football program improved to 3-0 on the 2026 college football season with a comfortable 27-10 home win over the Michigan State Spartans. While this game was a bit closer than expected throughout the first half, the Fighting Irish still did what they needed to do to hold onto their number three ranking for at least […] The post Notre Dame football news: The big mistake that had Marcus Freeman mad appeared first on ClutchPoints.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATETexas: College Football Rankings: USA Today reveals Coaches Poll Top 25 after Week 3.
After a jam-packed Week 3 in college football, Sunday brought the latest edition of the Coaches Poll from USA TODAY. Week 3 of the college football season carried some heavy expectations dating back to this summer. Everyone had Sept. 19 circled on their calendar. Thankfully, the slate delivered, especially down in Oxford. Key points from the original article: 1. Texas Longhorns 2. Georgia Bulldogs 3. Notre Dame Fighting Irish 4. Indiana Hoosiers 5. Miami Hurricanes 6. Ole Miss Rebels (+3) 7. Ohio State Buckeyes (-1) 8. Alabama Crimson Tide (+2) 9. BYU Cougars (+4) 10. Texas Tech Red Raiders (+2) 11. LSU Tigers (-4) 12. USC Trojans (-1) 13. Tennessee Volunteers (+1) 14. Penn State Nittany Lions (+1) 15. Utah Utes (+2) 16. Oregon Ducks (+2) 17. Iowa Hawkeyes (+3) 18. Michigan Wolverines (+1) 19. Louisville Cardinals (NR) 20. Texas A&M Aggies (-12) 21. Missouri Tigers (+1) 22. Florida Gators (NR) 23. Washington Huskies (+1) 24. Oklahoma Sooners (-3) 25. SMU Mustangs (-9)
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEUpdated ESPN FPI college football top 25 rankings after wild Week 3.
Updated ESPN FPI college football top 25 rankings after wild Week 3. Ohio State remains at No. 1 after crushing Kent State 59-3 on Saturday. That game was always going to be a blowout and lived up to the billing. MORE : Marcus Freeman rips RB Aneyas Williams for TD celebration penalty Key points from the original article: 1. Ohio State 2. Texas 3. Georgia 4. Notre Dame 5. Indiana 6. Miami 7. Alabama 8. LSU 9. Oregon 10. Tennessee 11. Penn State 12. Ole Miss 13. Oklahoma 14. Utah 15. Florida 16. Texas Tech 17. USC 18. BYU 19. Michigan 20. Nebraska 21. Mississippi State 22. Louisville 23. Auburn 24. Pittsburgh
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEDay after: Final thoughts on Notre Dame escaping upset minded MSU.
It wasn't a strong performance for the Spartans ' starting quarterback on Saturday night and he didn't shy away from that in the postgame press conference. Following the game, Milivojevic met with the media to discuss his performance and the overall team's performance against Notre Dame. Here are some of the notable takeaways from his media availability: Milivojevic stated he "needs to be better" for Michigan State to upset a team of Notre Dame's level. Milivojevic said he felt Michigan State came out with energy and were capable of winning this game. Milivojevic felt Michigan State "gave it away as much as they took it from us." Milivojevic talked about the Spartans' depth and the ability to lean on different players throughout the game to make plays for the offense. Milivojevic stated the Spartans are ready to turn the page on this game, and turn their focus to next week's Big Ten opener against Nebraska .
READ UPDATE →STATTAKEIs Notre Dame No. 3 Too High—or Are We Punishing Dominance?
The Irish have not beaten a top-five opponent. They have outscored Wisconsin and Rice 93–13, which is exactly what an elite team should do.
READ UPDATE →FEATURED ANALYSISSeven Teams Have 11-1 Title Odds. Only Three Were Top-12 on Both Sides.
The betting market sees a seven-team championship tier. StatTake’s 2025 efficiency data draws a sharper line around Ohio State, Oregon and Indiana—and exposes the different bets being made on Texas, Notre Dame, Georgia and Miami.
READ UPDATE →ROSTER BUILDING
RECRUITING HUB →Recruiting & development
Recruiting to production
See how efficiently signed talent develops into starts, impact and wins.
What transfers added
Separate returning development from incoming and outgoing portal value.
PROGRAM CONTEXT
TEAM TRENDS →History & trends
Wins, efficiency and schedule strength in one timeline.
Home, road, favorite and underdog performance.
Recent form versus the long-term series story.
Drafted players by position and development path.
UConn