Miami
Texas A&M
Purdue
Arkansas
Boise State
NC State
USC
Boston College
Navy
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
StanfordFour-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.
2025 SEASON DATABASE
Notre Dame football
Record: 10–2 (Schedule & Results)
Conference: Independent
Players: 74
Points For: 504
Points/Game: 42.0
Points Against: 211
Opp. Points/Game: 17.6
2025 SEASON
LIVE SCOREBOARD →Schedule & results
OFFICIAL SCHEDULE FEEDOpponent names and logos open team pages. Dates and results open StatTake box scores.
WEEKOPPONENTLOCATIONGAME
WEEK 1BYE——
WEEK 8BYE——
TEAM PRODUCTION
Team stats
Season totals organized for quick comparison. Swipe horizontally for more.
2025 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 217 | 321 | 3,061 | 67.6 | 9.5 | 25 | 6 | 169.7 | 0 | 409 | 2,472 | 6.0 | 38 | 217 | 3,061 | 14.1 | 25 | 42.0 |
TEAM ANALYTICS CENTER
OPEN NATIONAL ANALYTICS →Notre Dame analytics
LOADING 2025 EPA METRICS
The verified team snapshot is loading now.
2025 COMPLETE TEAM ROSTER
PLAYER PROFILES →Individual player statistics
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Passing
| PLAYER | CMP | ATT | YDS | CMP% | AVG | TD | INT | RTG | SACK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C. CarrQB | 195 | 293 | 2741 | 66.6 | 9.4 | 24 | 6 | 168.1 | — |
| K. MincheyQB | 20 | 26 | 196 | 76.9 | 7.5 | 0 | 0 | 140.2 | — |
| J. BurnhamDL | 1 | 1 | 84 | 100.0 | 84.0 | 1 | 0 | 1135.6 | — |
| J. FaisonWR | 1 | 1 | 40 | 100.0 | 40.0 | 0 | 0 | 436.0 | — |
| TEAM TOTALS | 217 | 321 | 3,061 | 67.6 | 9.5 | 25 | 6 | 169.7 | 0 |
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Rushing
| PLAYER | CAR | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | FUM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. LoveRB | 199 | 1372 | 6.9 | 94 | 18 | — |
| J. PriceRB | 113 | 674 | 6.0 | 58 | 11 | — |
| A. WilliamsRB | 24 | 224 | 9.3 | 54 | 5 | — |
| K. MincheyQB | 7 | 84 | 12.0 | 34 | 1 | — |
| G. PayneRB | 9 | 53 | 5.9 | 24 | 0 | — |
| N. James Jr.RB | 14 | 37 | 2.6 | 15 | 0 | — |
| C. CarrQB | 41 | 33 | 0.8 | 28 | 3 | — |
| T. BuchnerWR | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 | 0 | — |
| J. FaisonWR | 1 | -8 | -8.0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| TEAM TOTALS | 409 | 2,472 | 6.0 | 94 | 38 | 0 |
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Receiving
| PLAYER | REC | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. FaisonWR | 49 | 640 | 13.1 | 54 | 4 |
| M. FieldsWR | 36 | 630 | 17.5 | 66 | 5 |
| E. RaridonTE | 32 | 482 | 15.1 | 65 | 0 |
| W. PaulingWR | 26 | 381 | 14.7 | 44 | 6 |
| J. LoveRB | 27 | 280 | 10.4 | 36 | 3 |
| K. SmithWR | 8 | 123 | 15.4 | 34 | 2 |
| M. GilbertWR | 9 | 93 | 10.3 | 26 | 1 |
| J. PriceRB | 6 | 87 | 14.5 | 35 | 2 |
| L. TalichS | 1 | 84 | 84.0 | 84 | 1 |
| J. GreathouseWR | 4 | 73 | 18.3 | 34 | 0 |
| A. WilliamsRB | 2 | 40 | 20.0 | 25 | 0 |
| M. JefferyWR | 1 | 37 | 37.0 | 37 | 0 |
| T. WashingtonTE | 5 | 34 | 6.8 | 14 | 1 |
| J. LarsenTE | 3 | 30 | 10.0 | 24 | 0 |
| E. BurressWR | 3 | 21 | 7.0 | 12 | 0 |
| L. ScheidlerWR | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| C. WilliamsWR | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| J. Bettis Jr.WR | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| L. SaldateWR | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 0 |
| TEAM TOTALS | 217 | 3,061 | 14.1 | 84 | 25 |
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Defense
| PLAYER | TOT | SOLO | AST | TFL | SACK | INT | PD | FF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D. BowenLB | 67 | 33 | — | 4.5 | 3.5 | — | 3 | — |
| A. ShulerS | 52 | 29 | — | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | — |
| J. AusberryLB | 51 | 20 | — | 4 | 2 | — | 0 | — |
| B. JohnsonS | 48 | 35 | — | 0.5 | 0 | 4 | 3 | — |
| K. Viliamu-AsaLB | 48 | 25 | — | 7.5 | 3.0 | 1 | 2 | — |
| B. TraoreDL | 37 | 23 | — | 10.0 | 6.5 | — | 0 | — |
| J. StromanS | 37 | 30 | — | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | — |
| J. SneedLB | 35 | 23 | — | 5 | 3 | — | 0 | — |
| L. MooreCB | 31 | 23 | — | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 | — |
| J. OnyeDL | 26 | 14 | — | 1.5 | 1.5 | — | 1 | — |
| L. TalichS | 25 | 19 | — | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | — |
| D. GoldenCB | 22 | 11 | — | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | — |
| E. HughesDL | 21 | 14 | — | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | — |
| B. YoungDL | 20 | 10 | — | 2.0 | 2.0 | — | 3 | — |
| D. SmithCB | 20 | 18 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 3 | — |
| J. DawsonDL | 20 | 10 | — | 3.5 | 0.5 | — | 1 | — |
| J. BotelhoDL | 20 | 10 | — | 1.5 | 1 | — | 0 | — |
| C. GrayCB | 18 | 12 | — | 1 | 0 | 2 | 10 | — |
| J. BurnhamDL | 16 | 10 | — | 6.0 | 3 | — | 1 | — |
| M. FaraimoLB | 16 | 9 | — | 3 | 2 | — | 1 | — |
| G. RubioDL | 13 | 5 | — | 0.5 | 0.5 | — | 1 | — |
| D. HinishDL | 12 | 6 | — | 1.0 | 1.0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. TuihalamakaDE | 12 | 9 | — | 3.5 | 1 | — | 1 | — |
| M. Zackery IVCB | 10 | 7 | — | 0.5 | 0 | — | 2 | — |
| K. KiaLB | 9 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| A. MukamDL | 5 | 2 | — | 1.5 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| K. HobbsDB | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — |
| C. MullinsDL | 4 | 2 | — | 0.5 | 0.5 | — | 1 | — |
| T. RezacLB | 4 | 2 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| E. LongS | 3 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — |
| K. OnyiukeDL | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| C. Burgess Jr.DL | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. OttingOL | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. VinciLS | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| L. ThomasDL | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| P. ZinterTE | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| B. MinichDB | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| B. KahounLB | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| C. CarrQB | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| C. ThomasDB | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| E. SchmidtP | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| G. SulfstedDL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. BlairS | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| K. KiaLB | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| L. ScheidlerWR | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| M. JefferyWR | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| S. Sevillano Jr.DL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| S. AbsherOL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. Bennie-PowellDB | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. PriceRB | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| M. AugustineOL | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| TEAM TOTALS | 733 | 439 | 0 | 69 | 34 | 21 | 53 | 0 |
SEASON PRODUCTION
SWIPE FOR MORE →Kicking & Scoring
| PLAYER | FGM | FGA | FG% | XPM | XPA | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N. BurnettePK | 5 | 6 | — | 21 | 23 | 36 |
| E. SchmidtP | 0 | 3 | — | 40 | 41 | 40 |
| M. DiomedePK | 0 | 0 | — | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| TEAM TOTALS | 5 | 9 | 55.6 | 63 | 67 | 78 |
TEAM NEWS + STATTAKE ARTICLES
ALL CFB NEWS →Latest Notre Dame coverage
NATIONAL UPDATE
Week 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 →NATIONAL UPDATEGeorgia: A 42-7 rout in Oxford made the Bulldogs a unanimous choice for the top sp…
A 42-7 rout in Oxford made the Bulldogs a unanimous choice for the top spot after Miami's loss at Notre Dame, while Oregon makes a massive leap into the top 20 With Miami falling at Notre Dame on Saturday night, the door is open for a new team to take over at the No. 1 spot in the college football rankings. The Georgia Bulldogs were previously ranked No. 1 in the CBS Sports 138 on Oct. 12, but immediately took a tumble after an upset loss to Auburn. Then, on Saturday night, the Bulldogs throttled Ole Miss 42-7 in Oxford, putting together arguably one of the best wins that we've seen all season. That was the easiest decision on the ballot, and it's no surprise the Dawgs are a unanimous pick for the top spot in our college football rankings. Further down, things get a little more complex and complicated as our voters feel pretty good about the top five teams (Georgia, Utah, Notre Dame, UCLA and Miami), even if their order is not unanimous. What gets tricky is trying to sort out the next groups, as there is no agreement on the placement of Alabama or Texas, and Big 12 rivals BYU and Texas Tech are separated by a razor-thin margin inside the top 12. Those disagreements represented by o
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEGeorgia: BCS formula Top 25 makes changes after Week 10 results, before next CFP r…
The BCS formula Top 25 has dropped after an upset-filled weekend which could shift how the college football landscape looks. The CFP Selection Committee has provided its first looks at the rankings which will determine the playoff bracket. Meanwhile, BCSKnowHow has run the numbers again based on a fan-favorite model from the past which will help set the tone for what the updated Top 25 looks like on Tuesday. While the BCS era is in the rearview mirror and the college football postseason continues to change, the formula can still showcase where teams stand after Week 10 of the 2026 season. Key points from the original article: 1. Georgia (+1) 2. Utah (+1) 3. Notre Dame (+3) 4. UCLA (+1) 5. Miami (-4) 6. Alabama (+3) 7. Indiana (-3) 8. Texas (+2) 9. Tennessee (+7) 10. Texas Tech (+5) 11. Wake Forest (+3) 12. BYU (-4) 13. Kentucky (-6) 14. USC (+3) 15. Houston (+3) 16. Iowa (+4) 17. Ole Miss (-5) 18. Oregon (+7) 19. Boise State (+2) 20. Ohio State (-9) 21. LSU (-8) 22. South Carolina (+2) 23. Arizona 24. New Mexico (NEW) 25. Missouri (-6)
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATENotre Dame: On3 Heisman Trophy Poll: Top 10 player rankings after Week 10.
College Football Power Rankings: Notre Dame climbs to No. 2 amid shakeup after wild Week 10. Georgia takes over the top spot after dismantling Ole Miss, while Miami tumbles and undefeated Utah and UCLA remain locked out of the top five Trinidad Chambliss was untouchable at home and downright impressive whenever he faced Georgia last season. The Ole Miss quarterback, who accounted for five touchdowns in two games against the Bulldogs last season, was drilled 42-7 at home by Georgia in a lopsided loss that likely ended the Rebels' playoff dreams. Key points from the original article: • Rk — Teams — Chg — Rcrd • Georgia — Georgia handed Pete Golding and Trinidad Chambliss their first home loss. Gunner Stockton threw four TDs on nine completions, with three to Talyn Taylor, and he ran for another. Missouri visits this week. — -- • Notre Dame — The CFP's No. 11 team beat No. 1 Miami 31-24, six years to the day after toppling No. 1 Clemson. CJ Carr played the best game of his career, throwing for 319 yards and three TDs without an interception. ND i • Miami (Fla.) — Miami needed a half to figure out life without Malachi Toney. Darian Mensah threw a season-high 19 incompletions, the bigg
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATE2026 College Football Rankings: Georgia Reclaims No.
2026 College Football Rankings: Georgia Reclaims No. 1 As Notre Dame Beats Miami. Joel Klatt's top 10 looks a lot different after another weekend filled with upsets and tough losses across college football.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEDid Notre Dame stay put in ESPN’s FPI after the big win over Miami?.
Did Notre Dame stay put in ESPN’s FPI after the big win over Miami?. Notre Dame was the top team in ESPN's Football Power Index last week. Did the Irish stay in that position after the upset win over Miami?
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