A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.7% · rank 40 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Notre Dame
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.114
+5.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–182025–26 recorded finals
110.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Notre Dame.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1831 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.7Mean opponent adj. net 8.5 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 158 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 231 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 203 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.0%31 games · higher is betterRank 338 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 176 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.7%31 games · lower is betterRank 40 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 206 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 235 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.9 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.2 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.4% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.6% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.6% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.2% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.5% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 47.4% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.7% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.2% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.4% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.4% | 31 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
2,119 source possession rows across 31 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Effective FG%
52.3% · rank 158 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.2% · rank 235 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.0% · rank 338 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 10 times in the selected window; Notre Dame won 4. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 7, 2026 · road vs Boston College · L 69–77 · offense 91.7 / defense 102.4
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston CollegeMar 7, 2026 · road | L 69–77 | 152 | 91.7 | 102.4 | 75.2 | 44.4 | 14.6 | 15.9 |
| StanfordMar 5, 2026 · home | L 78–86 | 77 | 122.9 | 135.5 | 63.5 | 52.0 | 14.2 | 33.3 |
| NC StateFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 96–90 | 45 | 134.5 | 126.1 | 63.4 | 62.7 | 16.8 | 39.4 |
| DukeFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 56–100 | 1 | 78.3 | 139.8 | 71.5 | 43.3 | 21.0 | 12.5 |
| PittFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 68–73 | 71 | 108.4 | 116.4 | 62.7 | 46.9 | 12.8 | 38.1 |
| Georgia TechFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 89–74 | 137 | 129.3 | 107.5 | 68.8 | 61.0 | 18.9 | 41.9 |
| SMUFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 81–89 | 51 | 117.2 | 128.8 | 69.1 | 62.9 | 17.4 | 22.6 |
| Florida StFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 79–82 | 81 | 109.1 | 113.2 | 72.4 | 50.0 | 16.6 | 33.3 |
| LouisvilleFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 65–76 | 32 | 94.1 | 110.0 | 69.1 | 47.6 | 17.4 | 28.6 |
| SyracuseJan 31, 2026 · road | L 72–86 | 102 | 107.1 | 127.9 | 67.2 | 54.7 | 14.9 | 12.5 |
| VirginiaJan 28, 2026 · home | L 97–100 | 35 | 123.7 | 127.6 | 62.7 | 56.6 | 12.8 | 25.7 |
| Boston CollegeJan 24, 2026 · home | W 68–64 | 152 | 106.2 | 99.9 | 64.1 | 45.8 | 12.5 | 34.2 |
| North CarolinaJan 22, 2026 · road | L 69–91 | 22 | 99.9 | 131.8 | 69.1 | 41.3 | 7.2 | 34.6 |
| Virginia TechJan 17, 2026 · road | L 76–89 | 79 | 106.9 | 125.2 | 71.1 | 49.2 | 18.3 | 36.1 |
| MiamiJan 14, 2026 · home | L 69–81 | 57 | 101.8 | 119.5 | 67.8 | 53.8 | 26.6 | 37.5 |
| ClemsonJan 10, 2026 · home | L 61–76 | 26 | 95.2 | 118.7 | 64.1 | 52.1 | 21.9 | 20.7 |
| CaliforniaJan 3, 2026 · road | L 71–72 | 104 | 112.7 | 114.2 | 63.0 | 50.0 | 11.1 | 32.4 |
| StanfordDec 31, 2025 · road | W 47–40 | 77 | 80.8 | 68.8 | 58.2 | 34.8 | 20.6 | 38.1 |
| Purdue FWDec 21, 2025 · home | L 69–72 | 210 | 99.2 | 103.5 | 69.6 | 45.8 | 21.6 | 37.8 |
| EvansvilleDec 13, 2025 · home | W 82–58 | 302 | 123.1 | 87.1 | 66.6 | 59.3 | 18.0 | 29.4 |
| IdahoDec 11, 2025 · home | W 80–65 | 214 | 127.5 | 103.6 | 62.8 | 59.8 | 14.3 | 35.5 |
| TCUDec 6, 2025 · road | W 87–85 | 48 | 116.4 | 113.8 | 66.4 | 65.0 | 18.7 | 25.8 |
| MissouriDec 3, 2025 · home | W 76–71 | 49 | 110.6 | 103.3 | 68.7 | 56.5 | 18.9 | 24.1 |
| HoustonNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 56–66 | 2 | 95.0 | 112.0 | 59.0 | 40.0 | 13.6 | 24.3 |
| RutgersNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 68–63 | 107 | 109.4 | 101.3 | 62.2 | 56.4 | 25.7 | 43.3 |
| KansasNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 61–71 | 17 | 92.9 | 108.1 | 65.7 | 37.5 | 7.6 | 22.7 |
| BellarmineNov 20, 2025 · home | W 86–79 | 317 | 123.7 | 113.6 | 69.5 | 64.3 | 20.1 | 37.5 |
| Ohio StateNov 16, 2025 · road | L 63–64 | 25 | 94.4 | 95.9 | 66.7 | 50.0 | 19.5 | 22.6 |
| E IllinoisNov 12, 2025 · home | W 78–58 | 327 | 128.1 | 95.2 | 60.9 | 55.8 | 16.4 | 53.1 |
| Detroit MercyNov 8, 2025 · home | W 102–70 | 294 | 134.0 | 92.0 | 76.1 | 62.3 | 9.2 | 30.6 |
| Long IslandNov 4, 2025 · home | W 89–67 | 269 | 125.4 | 94.4 | 71.0 | 61.8 | 26.8 | 50.0 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braeden ShrewsberryG | 31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 55.4 | 18.8% | 31 | 1.7131 games | 21931 games |
| Cole CertaG | 31 | 26.9 | 12.8 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 56.8 | 22.9% | 31 | 1.2431 games | 22131 games |
| Carson TowtF | 31 | 26.0 | 5.9 | 9.0 | 1.7 | 56.6 | 12.9% | 31 | 1.3331 games | 031 games |
| Jalen HaralsonF | 27 | 26.7 | 16.2 | 4.0 | 2.6 | 56.5 | 33.4% | 27 | 0.9327 games | 2527 games |
| Logan ImesG | 31 | 21.1 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 46.8 | 15.1% | 31 | 1.4131 games | 7731 games |
| Garrett SundraF | 31 | 17.9 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 54.5 | 10.4% | 31 | 1.0831 games | 5231 games |
| Sir MohammedG | 31 | 16.4 | 5.7 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 46.9 | 23.7% | 31 | 1.0431 games | 4231 games |
| Brady KoehlerF | 30 | 15.9 | 5.6 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 57.3 | 18.4% | 30 | 0.3830 games | 5530 games |
| Markus BurtonG | 10 | 30.1 | 18.5 | 2.8 | 3.7 | 59.4 | 31.5% | 10 | 1.4210 games | 3610 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around Notre Dame?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
14Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
87%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 6 | 3,321 | 3,321 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,155 | 2,155 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,476 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
14 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braeden Shrewsberry →G | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 32.7 | 11.9 | 55.4% |
| Cole Certa →G | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 26.9 | 12.8 | 56.8% |
| Jalen Haralson →F | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 26.7 | 16.2 | 56.5% |
| Logan Imes →G | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 21.1 | 4.7 | 46.8% |
| Garrett Sundra →F | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 17.9 | 3.5 | 54.5% |
| Sir Mohammed →G | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 16.4 | 5.7 | 46.9% |
| Brady Koehler →F | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 15.9 | 5.6 | 57.3% |
| Markus Burton →G | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 30.1 | 18.5 | 59.4% |
| Kebba Njie →F | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 11.5 | 2.5 | 68.0% |
| Ryder Frost →F | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 6.8 | 3.0 | 58.4% |
| Matthew MacLellan →F | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 4.9 | 1.9 | 82.3% |
| Brady Stevens →G | Same programNotre Dame Fighting Irish | 2.4 | 0.6 | 38.0% |
Showing the 12 highest prior-minute records. Open the full roster board for every source-listed player.
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
Notre Dame vs Florida
67.0Notre Dame
83.0Florida
Florida win estimate87.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.1
Projected total150.0
80% home-margin range0.2 to 32.0
Estimated possessions68.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Florida attack 54.9% · Notre Dame defense 50.3%Notre Dame attack 52.3% · Florida defense 45.6%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Florida attack 16.0% · Notre Dame defense 15.3%Notre Dame attack 16.8% · Florida defense 16.7%
Second chancesHome 7.7 pts
Florida attack 38.1% · Notre Dame defense 26.1%Notre Dame attack 30.0% · Florida defense 25.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.1 pts
Florida attack 38.0% · Notre Dame defense 33.2%Notre Dame attack 33.3% · Florida defense 32.6%
Michelob ULTRA Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Michigan vs Notre Dame
65.1C Michigan
77.0Notre Dame
Notre Dame win estimate81.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.9
Projected total142.0
80% home-margin range-4.0 to 27.8
Estimated possessions66.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.3 pts
Notre Dame attack 52.3% · C Michigan defense 52.4%C Michigan attack 49.9% · Notre Dame defense 50.3%
Ball securityHome 3.4 pts
Notre Dame attack 16.8% · C Michigan defense 17.5%C Michigan attack 18.0% · Notre Dame defense 15.3%
Second chancesAway 5.8 pts
Notre Dame attack 30.0% · C Michigan defense 32.2%C Michigan attack 29.7% · Notre Dame defense 26.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.3 pts
Notre Dame attack 33.3% · C Michigan defense 35.9%C Michigan attack 33.9% · Notre Dame defense 33.2%
Purcell Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →