CFP Round 1 Preview: Notre Dame
Prepare for Indiana's First Round College Football Playoff matchup against the Notre Dame Fighting Irish with a comprehensive BSB Preview!
There is a lot to discuss around and within this Indiana-Notre Dame First Round matchup. There is the history of Indiana Football, of course, and how unprecedented the 2024 season has been — two more wins than any season in program history, albeit during Curt Cigneti’s first season as head coach. There is also the shared postseason struggles, as Indiana hasn’t won a bowl game since 1991 (only appeared in 6 since) and Notre Dame is 0-10 in BCS/New Year’s Six bowls since 1994 (credit), also 8-13 in postseason games since the end of the Lou Holtz Era (1996). Despite being located in the same state, Indiana and Notre Dame have faced off one time since 1958, which was a 1991 win for Notre Dame.
Additionally, there is the path that one of these teams has after this game (see the bracket below). Georgia is certainly not an easy matchup, but it’s performance in the SEC Championship game against Texas left some to be desired (to say the least), and the Bulldogs will play with their backup QB. If either takes down Georgia, it gets one of Penn State, SMU, and Boise State in the Semifinal. I think either team would sign up for that in a heartbeat, versus what lies on the other side of the bracket.
This matchup between Indiana and Notre Dame is intriguing because both have been on the butt-end of strength-of-schedule debates. Part of this is fair when only considering the most accessible strength of schedule metric, according to ESPN FPI, as Indiana owns the second-easiest strength of schedule in the CFP field and Notre Dame owns the fourth-easiest. However, Notre Dame and Indiana are also first and third, respectively, in scoring margin against FBS opponents, and the only common opponent is Purdue, which they beat 66-7 and 66-0, respectively. The lowest postgame win expectancy Indiana held against a team it defeated was 80% against Washington, while USC (77%) and Louisville (79%) were Notre Dame’s lowest. The Irish and the Hoosiers have been dominant and deserve to be in the College Football Playoff, but Notre Dame’s resume is plagued by a disastrous early-season home loss to Northern Illinois (93rd in SP+), and Indiana’s is blemished by its late-season 38-15 loss at Ohio State, its toughest test.
The result of this lopsidedness is loads of overestimation, which Indiana has reckoned with in the last few weeks, against Ohio State and what has been an improving Michigan team. The Hoosiers have seen their pass protection punctured and their passing attack stymied in unexpected ways, and Notre Dame saw its own version of this — with its rushing attack earlier in the season and now its pass defense against USC. This can make data-based generalization difficult.
Below are offensive and defensive comparisons, in terms of EPA, adjusted (credit Bud Davis) and unadjusted (BSB).
All of this is to say that two teams soaring high will likely both see regression in their little-tested strengths — OL run-blocking, run game, and DB play for Notre Dame; DL havoc, passing game, and run defense for Indiana — toward a middle ground, where those tug-of-war battles will decide the eventual winner.
In This Preview:
Advanced Stat Preview
What BSB is Watching For
Notre Dame’s Key Contributors
CFP Passing and Rushing EPA Distributions
CFP Conversion Rates
Notre Dame OL Preview
Witt’s Wager: Indiana First Quarter +3.5 (-122)
There are several recent Bite-Sized Bison editions that might be helpful going into this matchup, as well as recent content since Week 14. It’s all linked below. Also, all three Week 1 newsletters are free to the public for those curious what is enclosed in typical BSB weekly content.
Advanced Stat Preview
For an explanation of how the various algorithms (FPI, SP+, FEI) in this chart work, visit a previous Preview newsletter here.
BSB Stat Preview Highlights:
Notre Dame Defensive Success Rate: For as much talk as there is about Notre Dame’s rushing attack, the Irish defense is probably the bigger concern. Al Golden was just named a Broyles Award finalist for a reason, and his defense is allowing the 13th-lowest success rate to opposing offenses.
Notre Dame’s Defensive Rushing Success Rate: 101st is jarring! Indiana’s rushing attack isn’t elite, but it helps in setting up the pass. I wouldn’t anticipate Indiana beating Notre Dame by running the ball, but creating opportunities for play action is central to this offense’s philosophy and helps in getting Notre Dame’s DBs into conflict.
Notre Dame’s Turnovers Gained: Notre Dame is tied for 4th nationally with 17 interceptions. Kurtis Rourke and Mike Shanahan will have their hands full with that defensive backfield.
Indiana’s Offensive Early-Down EPA: Something has to give here, as Notre Dame is also top-10 in allowed early-down EPA. Given how strong Notre Dame’s defensive backfield is, staying out of obvious passing situations is important, which means Indiana must win these early-down faceoffs.
Indiana’s Defensive Passing Success Rate: If Indiana’s defensive backfield plays like the 44th-best, that’s great news for Notre Dame’s rushing attack. The Hoosier DBs will need to lock in on pass defense to keep its mid-level defenders focused on the rushing attack.
Notre Dame’s SP+ Special Teams Ranking: Notre Dame’s punter is graded 91st nationally and allows the 6th-highest return rate (Is that Myles Prices’ music?). The Irish also have the lowest field goal percentage in the FBS (8-for-18). Notre Dame is also outside the top-100 in average punt return yardage. Special teams is an advantage for Indiana, as long as it doesn’t have another Ohio State.
What BSB is Watching For
Can Indiana limit Notre Dame’s rushing attack?
This is the true strength-on-strength matchup in this game. As seen above, Notre Dame is second in the CFP field in rushing EPA/play (behind an Aston Jeanty-led Boise State offense), and Indiana leads the field (and nation) in rushing EPA/play allowed. The formula for stopping this Notre Dame offense is limiting the rush and forcing Riley Leonard to win games through the air. That’s much easier said than done.
Indiana ranks 10th nationally in SP+’s defense metric — the highest Notre Dame has seen is Texas A&M (16th), and its average opponent was 60th — and of anyone Notre Dame has played, Indiana is most-tooled to provide resistance to its run game.
As Indiana’s schedule got tougher, the defense, particularly the defensive front, got stronger. limiting four of its last six opponents to 2.5 yards per carry or fewer and holding Ohio State to its third-worst rushing performance of the season (4.0 yards per carry). The only real blemish was allowing Washington’s Jonah Coleman to rush for 104 yards.
Notre Dame ended its regular season averaging 6.0+ yards per rush in each of its last five games. The Irish are rolling. But it’s had moments where it struggled (relatively speaking) to move the ball on the ground, notably its 4.4 yards per carry against Northern Illinois (39th defense in SP+), 3.8 yards per carry against Louisville (34th), and 4.3 yards per carry against Georgia Tech (69th). Limiting the Irish’s rushing attack is not as impossible as folks might think, and it will likely take that type of effort for Indiana to win this game.
This Notre Dame rushing attack is a three-headed beast:
QB Riley Leonard is a strong passer, but he is also 6th in the Power 4 (plus Independents) in designed rushing yards for QBs (462). The closest Indiana has seen to that type of intentional QB running from the starting QB was Aidan Chiles, who ended the regular season with 203 designed rushing yards. Of course, Leonard will also hurt a defense in scrambling situations, which account for 40% of his total rushing yards.
RB Jeremiyah Love is an insane talent. He owns the best PFF rushing grade among Power 4 RBs and is averaging 7.1 yards per carry (17th nationally). His skillset is rooted in elite athleticism — watch him hurdle a defender and then drop his shoulder into another — and he owns the second-highest PFF Elusiveness Rating among FBS RBs. Love also grades as a top-15 receiving back, which I would anticipate seeing against Indiana.
RB Jadarian Price owns the second-best breakaway percentage among FBS RBs, as 63.8% of his total yardage is gained via carries of 15+ yards.
Together, these three rushers own 38 of Notre Dame’s 65 touchdowns (4th in the nation).
At the front of this rushing attack is a consistent offensive line, which will meet its toughest defensive front of the season. Notre Dame’s interior linemen — Billy Schrauth, Pat Coogan, and Rocco Spindler — are graded by PFF as the toughest interior OL Indiana will have seen, and Indiana’s deep rotation along its defensive line (ranked 6th nationally in front-seven havoc rate and 2nd in the CFP field in DL havoc rate) will be the toughest Notre Dame has seen, by a significant margin. In terms of PFF’s run defense grade, CJ West and Tyrique Tucker rank in the top-7 among CFP DTs, while Mikail Kamara (9th) and Lanell Carr (12th) are one of three DE duos inside the top-12 and LB Jailin Walker is 5th at his position, while LB Aiden Fisher leads CFP LBs in offensive plays stopped by his individual effort.
In the passing game, Notre Dame has capable receivers, as 11 different pass-catchers have caught a touchdown, but there is little top-end talent, as Clemson WR transfer Beaux Collins leads all Notre Dame receivers with 35.6 yards per game. The danger for a defense against the Notre Dame passing game is simply the numbers while selling out to stop the run. For Indiana, ensuring that DBs are positioned to take away the targets will be important because second-level defenders will be key in limiting Notre Dame’s rushing attack. LBs Aiden Fisher and Jailin Walker, as well as Rover DB Terry Jones, will be more important than ever in eliminating rushing seams against an explosive Notre Dame rushing attack. They can’t be in conflict.
Leonard will be the true wildcard here, as he will be the hinge point in Notre Dame’s offensive attack. The Hoosiers have proven capable in stopping a high-tier rushing attack but not necessarily one with the option at QB. There have been packaged rushing QBs, such as Nebraska’s Heinrich Haarberg (32 designed yards on 5 carries) and Michigan’s Alex Orji (1 yard and 1 fumble on 3 carries), but Michigan State’s Aidan Chiles (3 yards on 4 carries) was the most dangerous starting QB for designed runs (25th among P4 QBs) on IU’s schedule, and he doesn’t hold a candle to Leonard, who ranks 13th in rushing yards among all FBS QBs. The only moment in the season when a rushing QB hurt the Hoosiers was when Northwestern QB Jack Lausch led his team in rushing because of 38 scramble yards (the most IU surrendered in 2024), but he only recorded 9 designed yards. Overall, Indiana has allowed a total of 47 designed rushing yards (3.9 per game) to QBs, so there’s no proof that Indiana can’t handle Leonard and his accompanying RBs, but there’s also no real proof that they can either.
The Hoosiers rank 30th nationally in PFF’s tackling grade and will need every bit of it against Notre Dame. The Irish rank 4th in rushing plays of 40+ yards, so if Indiana can limit that explosion, it would go a long way. Too many of those big runs would mean curtains for Indiana.
Can Mike Shanahan scheme around Notre Dame’s man-to-man coverage?
When including Notre Dame DBs with Big Ten DBs, nobody plays a higher rate of man-to-man defense than Notre Dame. In fact, among all DBs in that group of 19 teams, the Irish place seven DBs in the top-13 for man-to-man snaps.
Notre Dame likes to man up in coverage and send its LBs to blitz (13th most LB pass-rush snaps nationally). This is a sort of hybrid of the two concepts that Michigan and Ohio State used to hurt Indiana’s offense; Michigan went to man-to-man coverages in the second half and let its talented DL harass Kurtis Rourke, and Ohio State used its LBs to disguise blitzes for creative pass-rush fronts.
Safeties Xavier Watts and Adon Shuler are two of the best coverage safeties in the FBS, grading 12th and 70th, respectively, which would be the second-best safety duo Indiana has seen in 2024 (Lathan Ransom and Caleb Downs at OSU). CBs Jordan Clark (31st), Leonard Moore (56th), and Christian Gray (122nd) are also solid — Moore in particular, allowing just 2 catches on 10 targets against USC recently.
However, Notre Dame has not seen a passing attack as efficient as Indiana’s. Notre Dame’s opposing offenses average the 71st passing success rate in the nation — and it’s not just Army and Navy; only three (Georgia Tech, Louisville, USC) are in the top-40. Indiana ranks No. 1. The Irish have also played 27 pass-catchers with 40+ targets this season; Indiana’s four WRs with 40+ targets when placed in that group of opposing pass-catchers would rank 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th by PFF. Notre Dame just hasn’t seen a receiving corps like Indiana’s, which makes man-to-man coverage a bit more difficult. Additionally, USC slot WR Makai Lemon (the highest-graded WR to play Notre Dame) torched Notre Dame for 133 yards on 9 catches. This is significant to Indiana because the Hoosiers targeted Ke’Shawn Williams and Myles Price 15 times against Michigan and Ohio State, and slot WRs are great for man-to-man coverages. Plus, Shanahan loves his slot WRs.
This Indiana passing success hinges, as it has all season, on rushing success, which gets into the next point…
How much can Indiana gain on the ground against a fairly soft Notre Dame run defense?
The Irish certainly deploy a bend-don’t-break strategy in run defense.
Notre Dame ranks 101st in rushing success allowed and 71st in line yards surrendered per rush. Teams like to run against Notre Dame — and not just Army and Navy — as the Irish have faced the 84th-most rushing attempts in the country. The result is fairly boom or bust. Notre Dame ranks 34th in yards per carry allowed (3.74) but also ranks 57th in second-level rushing yards allowed (413) — which would rank 14th in the Big Ten and 7th on Indiana’s schedule. The Irish also rank 42nd in rushes of 20+ yards allowed.
Indiana is known for its nationally leading passing efficiency, but the Hoosiers rank 103rd in pass attempts this season. OC Mike Shanahan likes to establish the run to set up impactful passes.
The Indiana rushing attack isn’t the most volatile threat in the nation (28th in rushing success rate, 51st in rushing yards per game), but it is tested. Five of Indiana’s opponents rank in the top-50 in allowed rushing success rates, and the results have varied from the Hoosiers “parting the Red Sea” against Nebraska (37th), as RB Justice Ellison said, to Michigan (11th) making life difficult for Indiana in the second half. But the Hoosiers showed flashes of promise in the running game against one of the strongest defenses in the country (Ohio State), as Curt Cignetti expressed a retroactive desire to stick with the rushing attack despite the game script. In those five games, Indiana averaged 122 rushing yards per game. During Notre Dame’s eight P4 games, it allowed an average of 117 rushing yards to teams ranked 62nd on average in rushing success. On Notre Dame’s schedule, only USC posted a better season-long rushing success rate than Indiana, and the Trojans averaged 7.0 yards per carry against the Irish in Week 14.
Much of this relates to the utility of the running game, too. Indiana uses its run game to achieve offensive balance and to set up passing efficiency. Louisville and USC — two offenses that also subscribe to varying levels of this strategy — found a lot of success against Notre Dame in the passing game after establishing an effective rushing attack. Louisville eventually threw for 264 yards and 3 TDs, and USC threw for 360 yards and 3 TDs (USC’s Jayden Maiava posted the 4th-best passing grade among FBS QBs that week).
The chart below shows each of Notre Dame’s opponents’ offensive production in each phase. Again, Indiana’s rushing attack is not the most potent, but Notre Dame hasn’t seen anything as efficient as Indiana’s passing offense.
Further, the offenses closest to Indiana in passing production (Louisville and Georgia Tech) pushed Notre Dame for 264 and 269 passing yards, respectively, while USC actually stacked a season-high 360 passing yards on Notre Dame, despite its season-long passing struggles. While discounting the one-dimensional service academies, the only offense with positive EPA in both phases that Notre Dame held beneath 300 total yards was Texas A&M in Week 1 (also Army). Louisville and USC found success by using the run to set up the pass, something Indiana surely plans to do.
If Indiana cannot find that passing success, though, it will need to lean more on its rushing attack, and if that’s the case, Indiana would need to find a way to the second level. It ranks 40th in rushes of 10+ yards, but 57% of them came against non-conference teams or Purdue. Since recording 8 carries of 10+ yards against Nebraska, Indiana has totaled 10 against teams not named Purdue, which is an average 2.5 per game. The Hoosiers would need more than that against Notre Dame if the passing game isn’t going — maybe so regardless.
How does the OL protect Kurtis Rourke?
Notre Dame’s DL isn’t terribly frightening. If the Irish were in the Big Ten, its starting DEs would grade as high as 31st by PFF, and its starting DTs would grade as high as 28th. Take a look at how the DL havoc chart sorts out for the CFP field:
As a pass-rush unit, Notre Dame is tied with Penn State at 20th in QB pressures, which is effective, but its pressure-to-sack ratio ranks 9th in the CFP field, as the Irish have sacked opposing QBs 30 times (37th nationally). For the College Football Playoff standard, Notre Dame’s pass rush isn’t necessarily overwhelming.
The concern is that Notre Dame’s pass rush is so interior-focused. While its DTs don’t grade impressively overall, they do grade well in pass rush — would place three DTs in the Big Ten top-17 — and own the most interior DL sacks in the nation (19). Also, their LBs rank 13th nationally in pass-rush snaps, meaning Notre Dame will supplement its DL with blitzes in pass rush. We saw how well that went for Indiana against Ohio State, another DL that needed help in pass rush.
It should be noted that Notre Dame’s quality of LB blitzes is much lower, as the Irish rank 75th in LB pressure rate (QB pressures divided by pass-rush snaps), compared to Ohio State’s 22nd-ranked LB pressure rate (and Indiana’s 2nd-ranked pressure rate!). But even though it might look different than Ohio State’s or Michigan’s blitzes, Notre Dame’s interior focus is a major concern with the recent degradation of guard play along Indiana’s OL.
If the OL can’t protect Rourke, where does Shanahan turn? There were several factors that went into why Indiana struggled as much as it did against Ohio State (see below), but many of those factors weren’t there for the second half against Michigan. If it’s more of the same from Indiana’s interior, what does Indiana do? Does it have a quick-passing game up its sleeve? Does it turn to the run? Does it stick with RPO?
How does Indiana handle Notre Dame Stadium?
Notre Dame Stadium is not Ohio Stadium. There are 25,000 fewer seats, and Notre Dame has lost there four times in the last three seasons (including its loss to Northern Illinois this year). That’s as many times as Ohio State has lost at home in the last decade. This task is not that task (and former Irish guard Aaron Taylor knows it); but the trip to Columbus can help inform the team for this game.
Before Indiana played at Ohio State, it had handled strange road games surprisingly well — dominating the trip to UCLA in Week 3 and winning in Northwestern’s makeshift venue — but it’s only other traditional road environment was at Michigan State (roughly the same size as Notre Dame Stadium but less inspired in 2024). That showed against Ohio State, and Curt Cignetti noted that after the game, explaining how Kurtis Rourke struggled to communicate with his offensive line, even needing to go to a silent count mid-game. This also happened to be the game when Indiana’s offense showed the least response schematically to what its opponent was doing, leaving some to wonder if the communication woes were partially responsible.
I’m actually surprised that all of this wasn’t mentioned that often during the debates around the CFP.
There’s little reason to believe Indiana won’t learn from that experience — they’ve done so in most other contexts — but it must be better prepared for a road environment more similar to Ohio Stadium than anything it’s played in thus far. I’m curious what that looks like.
Can Indiana handle Notre Dame early in Irish offensive drives?
Special teams and field position are always significant, but they’re even more significant here. Notre Dame averages the 14th-best field position in the nation on offense, which is fortunate for the Irish because their special teams units are pretty awful. Noted above, they’re punting situation isn’t ideal, and Notre Dame kickers are hitting the lowest percentage of field goals in the country (44%). Special teams is a key advantage for Indiana, and Notre Dame knows that in most of its matchups, which is why it attempts the 45th-most fourth down conversions (trailing only Ohio State and Arizona State in the CFP). While Indiana ranks 2nd nationally in fourth-down defense (10-of-32 allowed), Notre Dame has been just as strong on offense (19-of-25 converted).
So the best place to force those fourth downs is in areas of the field where the Irish are unwilling to risk surrendering field position, meaning the Hoosiers need to find ways to stunt Notre Dame drives as early as possible. While that is easier said than done, Indiana ranks 4th nationally (according to BCFtoys.com) in percentage of yards surrendered before an opponent’s own 40-yard line, and Notre Dame ranks a surprising 45th in percentage of yards gained before its own 40-yard line.
All of this seems very obvious because teams want to always push the opponent’s back against the ropes, but Indiana must find ways to do that as often as possible. That means a better day for James Evans and the return teams than there was against Ohio State, deep drives by Indiana’s offense with limited turnovers, and good early-drive play by Indiana’s defense, particularly on early third downs.
Notre Dame Key Contributors
QB Riley Leonard: The Duke transfer QB is graded 17th among FBS QBs. Leonard ranks 73rd in attempted passes, and the passing attack isn’t necessarily explosive (16 TDs, 7.1 yards per attempt). However, he ranks 16th in designed rushing yards and 14th in scramble yards. This was a skillset he showed at Duke but was truly unlocked at Notre Dame under OC Mike Denbrock, who was the OC at Cincinnati in 2021.
RBs Jeremiyah Love and Jadarian Price: Former Indiana RB coach Deland McCullough has recruited and developed himself one hell of a running back duo in South Bend. Both sophomores rank in the FBS top-17 in yards per carry, and Love grades 2nd among FBS RBs, via PFF. Love and Price will touch the ball roughly 20 times during a given game and account for about 36% of Notre Dame’s yardage and 37% of its scores. Those 20 touches are massive.
TE Mitchell Evans: The highly anticipated TE has been working his way back from a season-ending knee injury in 2023 and seems to be getting back to 100%, after his best game against USC (5 catches, 59 yards, 1 TD). He’s huge in creating conflict for opposing LBs, and he’s a threat in the redzone (3 TDs in last 4 games).
DT Rylie Mills: Mills does not grade particularly well overall, as he often struggles in run defense, but he's a monster in pass rush. He’s tied for the most sacks among FBS interior DLs, with 7. He’s a crucial responsibility for the interior of Indiana’s OL.
LB Jack Kiser: The Pioneer HS grad has come a long way in his development and is a reliable presence in the center of Notre Dame’s defense. He isn’t a huge havoc-creator (3 TFLs, 1 sack, 0 INT, 1 PBU, 2 fumble recoveries, 1 forced fumble), but he is one of the best tacklers in the nation (2nd in missed tackles) and has a history of effective coverage. He just destroys plays in that mid-level.
SAF Xavier Watts: Coming off a season when he tied for the nation’s lead in interceptions (7), Watts is currently tied for 3rd in 2024, with 5. He’s graded as the 16th-best coverage DB, but it’s hard to believe he’s not the best.
CBs Leonard Moore and Christian Gray: A true freshman out of Texas, Moore has been a bit of a surprise after injuries required his early playing time. He has a great combination of length and speed (at 6-foot-2) and grades in the top 18% of coverage CBs. As a CB duo this season, Gray and Moore have combined to allow a 52% reception rate, which is insane. Gray returned an INT 99 yards for a TD against USC the last time Notre Dame played.
CFP Passing and Rushing Distribution
The chart below maps every play recorded by every team in the Big Ten by their EPA values — disaggregated by passing and rushing, and then again by offense and defense. The dotted line indicates EPA/play within each distribution and is the measure that orders each column. To explain the curves simply: the further right the crests of the curves are on offense the better, and the further left the crests are on defense the better.
Observations:
On both sides of the ball, this will be a strength-on-strength matchup. Plays from Notre Dame in the passing game and plays from Indiana in the rushing game could be crucial in offsetting these strengths-on-strengths.
The distribution curve of Notre Dame’s passing game, when compared to the other teams, suggests while many of Notre Dame’s passing plays aren’t as productive as the field, they do still hit for minimal success. The passing game does still exist, despite the strong rushing attack.
The curves of Indiana’s passing game and Notre Dame’s pass defense suggest a clash, where Indiana has that second, positive crest (lots of explosion and success above expectation) and Notre Dame allows very little explosion. Comparing to Ohio State’s pass defense, Notre Dame allows more consistent, minimal success (see Ohio State’s visible dip just after zero).
The differences between teams’ rushing distributions are extremely minimal (you really have to look closely), but see the Ashton Jeanty Effect in Boise State’s curve (how late that leveling out of the curve happens). Notre Dame doesn’t really reach a point where it levels off, and it maintains a greater proportion of high-EPA plays as the curve exits the graph. Compare that positive tail to Ohio State’s! Indiana cannot allow that explosion from Notre Dame. Where Indiana needs to find success is by keeping that rushing attack as close to expectation as possible (see how much further left of zero Indiana’s rush defense peak is compared to Notre Dame’s rushing offense peak).
CFP Conversion Rates, Offense & Defense
When a team begins a new set of downs, how often does it convert? How does that set of downs typically result? Below shows the conversion rate, which is how often each result takes place out of total offensive and defensive series (missed field goals included in Field Goal, and turnovers on downs included in Turnover).
Observations:
These are two teams used to scoring touchdowns. They own the two highest TD rates, and Indiana leads the nation in total TDs (70), with Notre Dame 4th (65).
Notre Dame is 65th nationally in first downs per game. One could argue it’s because the Irish score so many touchdowns, but Indiana has scored more TDs and is 10th nationally in first downs per game. If Indiana’s defense can get Notre Dame into positions where it’s leaning on its special teams, that’s advantageous for the Hoosiers, as Notre Dame is ranked 100th in ESPN SP+ special teams rating. The problem with that idea is that Notre Dame knows this. Only Arizona State and Ohio State have attempted more 4th downs than Notre Dame. The Irish are all-in, and they’re very good on 4th down (5th nationally); however, Indiana is 2nd nationally in allowed 4th down conversion rate, hence why Indiana’s forced turnover rate is close to Notre Dame’s. Fourth downs, field position, and early-drive conversions will be crucial in this one.
Aside from the sheer number of turnovers forced by Notre Dame’s defense, the Indiana and Notre Dame defenses have had similar performances this season, with Indiana just edging out Notre Dame for the 4th-lowest conversion rate allowed in the CFP field.
Offensive Line Preview
Observations:
Notre Dame’s primary OL strength is that it has a fairly high floor. Since moving to this particular unit, once LG Billy Schrauth returned from a sprained ankle, they’ve continued to improve in the run game.
This OL, however, has not played a front like Indiana’s. The Hoosiers rank 6th nationally in front-seven havoc rate (via College Football Data). The best fronts Notre Dame has played, by this metric, are Texas A&M (31st) and Northern Illinois (44th), and the average rank in front-seven havoc for Notre Dame’s schedule is 77th. The best front that this particular OL arrangement has played is Florida State (79th). Of course, this can always be flipped in that Indiana hasn’t played the strongest OLs either, and when it has, that havoc was not as present. As is the case for most statistical cases like this one, that tug of war will decide which direction this game goes.
Tackles: LT Anthonie Knapp would grade 26th among Big Ten tackles (plus ND), and his 4 allowed sacks (22 pressures) would tie for 5th-most. This could be exploited by Mikail Kamara. RT Amil Wagner is a very good run-blocking tackle, but he — like LT Anthonie Knapp — has also allowed a decent amount of pressures in pass protection (18).
Guards: Billy Schrauth has graded well since returning from an ankle sprain and making room for Rocco Spindler by moving to LG. Spindler took over for Schrauth and made himself irreplaceable at RG. Both grade as the 2nd- and 3rd-highest graded guards Indiana will have played thus far. The clash between this guard duo and Indiana’s deep rotation of DTs — graded by PFF next to Texas and Oregon at the top of the CFP field — will be paramount.
Center: Pat Coogan made the move back to center, after spending 2023 at LG, and he’s been phenomenal. He would’ve been graded 2nd in the Big Ten, just above Mike Katic, among centers. He’s only allowed 4 QB pressures this season.
Witt’s Wagers
Ben Wittenstein has created sports betting content during the last five years for various media outlets, including Stadium, Bleav Network, BetMGM, and Bet QL. He graduated from IU with a journalism degree in 2017 and spent four years broadcasting IUFB games on top of Memorial Stadium’s press box (shoutout WIUX). You can find Ben on Twitter at @BenWittenstein, where you can ask betting questions about IU and beyond.
Bet: Indiana First Quarter +3.5 (-122)
Ben’s 2024 Record: 9-3
Watching Indiana football in the first quarter is like watching Bob Ross paint. At first, it looks like nothing is going to come of it, then suddenly—BAM—art, in the form of IU holding an early lead after 15 minutes.
It’s happened time and time again: IU has an impressive 10-1-1 record straight up in the first quarter this season. They average 7.3 points per first quarter, ranking top-25 nationally, and give up just 1.2 points per opening frame—second-best in the country. If there’s one thing to be said about Curt Cignetti this season, it’s that he gets his team prepared to play from the start.
Sure, there’s some concern that the Hoosiers’ first-quarter habits might change in the face of such high stakes and a rowdy road environment. Yet, IU has been here before—on the road, in a hostile atmosphere, with a lot on the line.
And what happened? They ended the first quarter leading at Ohio State 7-0.
For their part, Notre Dame gives up a fairly pedestrian 4.5 points per first quarter at home this season—good for 62nd in the country. Their opening-frame record stands at 7-2-3.
The high stakes and hostile environment shouldn’t be nearly as much of a problem after the Hoosiers experienced Columbus less than a month ago. With the nation’s top-ranked offensive success rate and the sixth-ranked defensive success rate, IU should have more than enough firepower to hang with the Irish early.
With the talent gap standing tall in a game like this (much like in the Ohio State matchup), I’m betting on IU to stay with the Irish for at least one quarter. Let’s hope IU does what they’ve done all season long: start strong.
Most excellent as usual. I have only caught some of the ND games this season but came away thinking you need to go back to Saquon Barkley for IU to find a back as good as ND’s. Back then PSU’s qb scrambles hurt as much as anything. But this isn’t Tom Allen defense. Qb runs as noted here have hurt this year’s Hoosiers BUT normally on scrambling or broken plays.
IU attacks the perimeter with tunnel/bubble screens or reverses. They mix in the over shifted toss play you can see coming from Mishawauka.
I look for some key buster counters from IU. Perhaps a return of the ill executed rb option pass that has misfired twice. Or appearing to run the tunnel screen to Williams and a blocker sneaks long. Maybe Elijah doesn’t drop this one.
I look for more throws to the backs and Horton.
The OL needs to show up strong. If ND plays man I look for rub routes and maybe Cooper deep. THE SLANTS in the RPO game have scared me all season.
I Don’t worry about IU’s defense holding up. I think their safeties can play.
Let’s be honest. Aside from the OSU game the ill timed monumental ^**+-up hasn’t been a weakness in 2024. IU needs to avoid the big blunder
If I have fears it’s:
1. Weather
2. IU’s Guard play
3. An officiating crew of O’Hara, O’Riley, O’Flanagan, O’Toole and O’Malley
I believe IU HAS A punchers chance. Go IU
Just an awesome primer for the Notre Dame game!