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. TuihalamakaDE | 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
Ohio State: ESPN Casts Doubt on Unbeaten Big 12 Team’s Resume after Paul Finebaum…
ESPN Casts Doubt on Unbeaten Big 12 Team’s Resume after Paul Finebaum Delivers Blunt CFP Title Verdict: “They Struggled”. The Utes have spent the season building an undefeated campaign, and now they find themselves sitting ahead of college football heavyweights Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Miami in the AP rankings. But being No.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEJake Dickert on losing championship games with CFP expansion: 'Why do we have conf…
He noted that while conference title games can both benefit and hurt teams like Wake Forest, it feels odd to not have the games at all. $19.99 gets you a FULL year of On3 | Rivals national coverage “The new playoff format I think forces everybody’s hands into this. I don’t know my feeling,” Dickert said. Right now, you’re like man, all of the championship games are going away. At the end of the day, you can see why. Even this year, it can be an elimination game. Notre Dame doesn’t have to play that game, or certain people don’t have to play those games.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEProjecting where Notre Dame lands in second CFP Poll of 2026.
Projecting where Notre Dame lands in second CFP Poll of 2026. Notre Dame football is sure to rise in the College Football Playoff rankings, and here is a guess at where the Irish will land.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATENotre Dame: Marcus Freeman knows a signature victory over the top-ranked Hurricane…
Marcus Freeman knows a signature victory over the top-ranked Hurricanes boosts playoff odds, but three regular-season games remain to make sure the committee has no excuses He still didn't care about the College Football Playoff Rankings. We don't need to talk about it," Freeman said. "Our job was to leave no doubt today, and they did." The committee's first release put the Irish at No. 11, seven spots below where the AP poll had them. It was a reminder of last season, when the committee flipped Miami and Notre Dame in a last-minute change, leaving the Irish out of the playoff. "I was asked the same question on (ESPN's College) GameDay, like it really doesn't matter where we were ranked," Freeman said. It doesn't matter what you're ranked until the last week, and that's the truth."
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATE2026 College Football Rankings Top 25 Week 11: Expert picks, analysis, AP projecti…
2026 College Football Rankings Top 25 Week 11: Expert picks, analysis, AP projections including Notre Dame. NBC Sports’ Vaughn Dalzell breaks downs his College Football Top 25 rankings entering Week 11 Week 10 absolutely lived up to the hype! We had upsets all over the place and top 10 matchups that shook up the rankings and college football playoff scene. Key points from the original article: 1. Georgia Bulldogs (+1) 2. Utah Utes (+1) 3. Notre Dame Fighting Irish (+2) 4. Miami Hurricanes (-3) 5. Texas Longhorns (+2) 6. Alabama Crimson Tide (+8) 7. Indiana Hoosiers (-1) 8. UCLA Bruins (+4) 9. Texas Tech Red Raiders (+4) 10. BYU Cougars (-6) 11. Ole Miss Rebels (-3) 12. South Carolina Gamecocks (+3) 13. Tennessee Vols (+7) 14. Kentucky Wildcats (-4) 15. LSU Tigers (-4) 16. Oregon Ducks (NR) 17. USC Trojans (-1) 18. Wake Forest Demon Deacons (-1) 19. Boise State Broncos (-1) 20. Houston Cougars (-1) 21. Arizona Wildcats (NR) 22. Iowa Hawkeyes (+1) 23. Louisville Cardinals (+2) 24. Oklahoma State (NR) 25. Ohio State Buckeyes (-16)
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEWeek 11 College Football Playoff predictions: Notre Dame sends a message to the co…
BCS rankings: How Georgia, Notre Dame, Alabama stack up under old college football system. If the BCS formula determined the College Football Playoff rankings instead of the selection committee, here's how things would stand after Week 10 Enjoy it while it lasts, college football fans. We're entering the final stretch of the 12-team playoff era, with further expansion set to begin next season , which puts less deliberation in the hands of the selection committee and more opportunities for teams to play their way into the postseason. Key points from the original article: 1. Georgia 2. Utah 3. Notre Dame 4. UCLA 5. Miami 6. Alabama 7. Indiana 8. Texas 9. Tennessee 10. Texas Tech
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