It’ll take a little extra work. I could do it manually, or I could do some work in R or Python (R is pretty nice for just exploring data).
https://cfbfastr.sportsdataverse.org/articles/intro.html has play-by-play data.
Life got kinda busy, and I haven’t done my own number crunching as much lately.
I can pull the expected points based on the play number—there’s an existing graph for that. I can compare Duke (where we got 24 points) vs. ND (where we only got 13).
At Duke, we didn’t blow them out of the water—we just kept plugging away in little positive steps. At Notre Dame, we muddled along until Q3–the blocked FG was a -5 point swing, then it got worse in Q4 with two interceptions (-7.95 pick six and -3.44 expected points). This view makes a person think that the mistakes were the bigger issue. Of course, we made the mistakes because the other stuff wasn’t working.
We also starved Duke of possessions. Notre Dame wasn’t starved at all.
View attachment 17061
View attachment 17062
@roadkill you might care about this too, but when I saw us lining up for field goals, I was thinking “we’re not going to win this game with those”. ND faking punts and faking field goals is what we should have been doing (IMO). As an underdog, I thought we should have taken more chances.