When ESPN released its first 2025 preseason Football Power Index on June 3, it annually sparked vigorous analysis—and perhaps few programs drew more attention than Notre Dame. The Fighting Irish were ranked No. 7 nationally, a position indicating both high expectation and intriguing nuance in how the program is perceived. That placement, while impressive, has fueled discussion about the balance between respect for past accomplishment and skepticism of future potential.
The FPI applies a sophisticated, predictive model built on expected points added (EPA), blending offensive, defensive, and special teams efficiency alongside contextual factors like travel, rest, returning production, recruiting rankings, and coaching continuity). In the case of Notre Dame, the ranking at No. 7 suggests the model sees them as one of the nation’s top contenders, yet behind the SEC stalwarts like Texas and Georgia, plus others such as Ohio State, Alabama, Penn State, and Oregon.
Within the specific context of title odds, ESPN’s FPI lists Notre Dame’s national championship chances at 2.4%, with a projected season record of ~9.3 wins and a 45.6% probability of making the playoff . These numbers trigger mixed feelings: on one hand, nearly half the simulated futures result in a playoff birth—solid validation. On the other, only a modest ~2.5% chance of a title run suggests a ceiling ranked just below the country’s elite programs. Critics have seized on this discrepancy—acknowledging Notre Dame’s 14‑1 2024 campaign, a national championship game appearance, and top-tier roster depth—arguing that the FPI has difficulties reconciling historical performance with predictive modeling.
Notre Dame’s 2024 season set a historic tone. The Irish’s 14‑1 record included major wins over Georgia in the Sugar Bowl and Penn State in the Orange Bowl to reach the CFP National Championship Game. That run elevated them to their most successful season since 2013. Yet, preseason honors and respect don’t always translate neatly into predictive mathematics that weigh offseason transitions heavily.
With key losses at quarterback—including both starter and likely replacement—and other impact departures, FPI credits Notre Dame’s roster but remains cautious. The model projects a nearly 3‑loss season (9.3 wins) and just ~7% odds of a perfect regular season . The schedule appears daunting: tough early tests at Miami and Texas A&M, together with a first-year starter at quarterback and uncertain cohesion among new starters, prompt model conservatism. For context, the FPI places Texas at 28.5, Georgia 26.6, Ohio State 23.8, Alabama 24.2, Penn State 21.5, Oregon 20.5, Clemson 17.3, Miami 17.5—and then Notre Dame at 18.1. That string of SEC and Power 5 contenders underscores the model’s estimated gap between Notre Dame and perennial championship threats like Texas and Georgia.
Analysts and fans have voiced frustration. In a recent SI piece titled “Notre Dame Gets Head‑Scratching Playoff Projection from ESPN FPI,” managing editor Nick Shepkowski points out that despite returning talent and a deep roster, Notre Dame is viewed, in the simulations, as just below the top tier: “less than half the time this team would make the Playoff? … to think eight teams have a better shot … feels a bit absurd”. The criticism highlights tension between narrative momentum and ZIP-code-level arithmetic.
But what does FPI measure—and why does it land where it does? The model is brutally objective: on-field performance in returning starters, depth chart quality, recruiting class quality, portal pickups, rest and travel conditions, and historical metrics, all rolled into a Bayesian prediction of typical efficiency and outcome distribution . Notre Dame ranks seventh overall, but is just outside the top five in projected wins and title odds . That reflects both strength and caution: strong enough to be among 10‑15 playoff contenders nationally, uncertain enough to be vulnerable in simulations.
Beyond team-level context lies the narrative element: Notre Dame’s 2025 recruiting class ranked between 11th–15th in national media, powered by a top‑10 talent core and strong portal integration. That supports FPI’s positive signal on personnel. Moreover, the coaching staff retains Marcus Freeman for a fourth season and Mike Denbrock returning as offensive coordinator, providing stability . Still, the model may be factoring in FBS‑leading competition from other top‑end programs—even small quarterback disruptions can cause projection shifts.
Critically, the FPI isn’t a ballot; it’s a forward projection tool. Whereas AP polls reflect perception and recent success, FPI peeks ahead, often discounting last season’s narrative in favor of measurable future expectations. That method means despite the momentum of a title game berth, the rigor of simulations and efficiency metrics weighs losses—real or potential—more heavily. In contrast, AP polls might propel a team with historical success into a top‑5 preseason position; FPI’s margin for error is thinner, favoring depth, returning production, and quarterback stability.
Notre Dame landing at No. 7 reveals broader trends. First, it recognizes the program as an elite national contender in talent and roster strength. Second, it underscores that a single elite season—even a championship appearance—doesn’t guarantee elite odds if systemic uncertainties loom. Third, it exposes the FPI’s inherent skepticism: its calculations punish potential risk while awarding sustained structural advantages such as recruiting pedigree and stable roster composition.
Important comparisons emerge. SEC teams dominate the top: Texas (83.9% playoff odds simulation result), Georgia (78.6%), Ohio State (70.6%), Alabama (66.2%), Penn State (63.8%), Oregon, Clemson and Miami—all outrank Notre Dame in playoff odds . As much as Notre Dame fans may protest, the model values systemic advantages in conference depth, quarterback returns, and roster continuity. Notre Dame enters simulations with nearly half success odds (45.6%), but a “long shot” to ascend to No. 1 odds.
Critics argue this reflects a bias favoring resource-rich programs—though ESPN stresses FPI measures talent and strength, not brand or broadcast frequency . Vast recruiting budgets and SEC rosters amplify average returning starters, offering model advantages. Notre Dame, as an independent, lacks annual conference schedules laden with multiple top‑10 matchups that drive model coefficients. Its path includes marquee games, but fewer internal annual tests compared to SEC teams—this reduces FPI weighting on battle‑hardening.
That independence may be its greatest strength and weakness. Schedule flexibility allows marquee matchups (e.g., at Miami or vs. Texas A&M), but sacrificing intra‑conference competition may cost FPI credit for consistency. The model values strength of schedule dynamically; Notre Dame’s path is high‑variance. SEC teams may land in every simulation few times but also have more baseline consistency inside their conference arcs.
Still, many expect Notre Dame to outperform: the model may be overly cautious on quarterback unknowns, positional shifts, and continuity. CJ Carr—or any starter—benefits from a veteran team and roster continuity led by running backs like Jeremiyah Love and Jadarian Price. Training camp and halftime adjustments could shift early games. The central pivot is quarterback readiness; if Carr or another gains traction, efficiency gains may propel them into the top 5 or even title conversations.
Weighing FPI’s caution vs. Notre Dame’s momentum yields a complex truth: at face value, the preseason ranking reflects established strengths—talent, depth, coaching stability, recruiting success, recent championship experience. Yet underlying that ranking lies a pragmatic realism—injuries, quarterback transitions, and schedule volatility threaten consistency. FPI isn’t denying Notre Dame’s power; it’s simply assigning probability where traditional polls assign status.
Finally, this ranking underscores a broader shift in college football. Predictive data models increasingly influence narrative, media, even betting markets. Notre Dame’s placement at No. 7 isn’t just about perceived power—it’s a lens on how analytics shape expectations. Fans and analysts may debate its fairness, but few can deny its rigor.
