Notre Dame Fighting Irish vs Villanova Wildcats basketball final score
Sun, Nov 1 · 9:30 AM ET · Palazzo dello Sport, Rome, Italy (neutral site)
Eternal City Tip-OffNeutral siteNon-conferenceFoxPalazzo dello Sport, Rome, Italy
Notre Dame
2025-26: 13-18 · 4-14 conf
Efficiency #106
vs
Villanova
2025-26: 24-9 · 15-6 conf
Efficiency #40
Final
7472
Final score
Projected 70.5 – 78.0
ND win 26%VILL win 74%
MarketClose
Spread
VILL −7.0
open VILL −7.5
Total
145.5
open 148.5
Our line
VILL −7.6
as of Sun, Nov 1 · 9:27 AM ET
Our play
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.
How our line is built
each step, from an even game to our lineSpread
Even game
0.0
Villanovarated 14.2 above average
+14.2
Notre Damerated 6.6 above average
−6.6
Our line
VILL −7.6
◂ Notre Dame sideVillanova side ▸
The spread is seen from the home side: a plus moves it toward Villanova. Our total joins once both teams have played 3 games.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Notre Dame is the faster team (66.7, #259 of 365) and Villanova the slower (66.5, #269). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.0
per team, 40 min
Market total
145.5
Market close · open 148.5
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.4#254
Notre Dame
66.8#302
Villanova
How this game plays
points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchupOur line
VILL −7.6
Four factors 3.7Not in these stats 3.9
From the four factors
Villanova has the ball+3.4
Notre Dame has the ball−0.3
Villanova has the ball
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 15.0% #66 · ND forces 14.0% #337 · ~9 turnovers+2.3
✓Shoots it welleFG% 53.8% #74 · ND allows 51.8% #200+1.6
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 30.9% #284 · ND allows 36.2% #214 · FT 68.9% #302−0.3
✗Few second chancesOR% 32.2% #118 · ND allows 26.7% #27−0.2
Notre Dame has the ball
✗Coughs it upTO% 17.0% #202 · VILL forces 18.6% #69 · ~12 turnovers−1.0
✓Shoots it welleFG% 52.3% #133 · VILL allows 51.4% #181+0.6
✓Wins second chancesOR% 31.2% #155 · VILL allows 31.8% #246+0.5
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 34.1% #206 · VILL allows 30.0% #59 · FT 69.7% #278−0.4
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersNotre Dameoffense vsVillanovadefense
Share of shots by zone
Notre Dame shoots
31.9
4.8
20.0
43.3
Villanova allows
37.3
6.9
19.3
36.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.0%#72 | 60.9%#267 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 28.2%#356 | 38.8%#155 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.3%#211 | 40.0%#243 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#82 | 33.4%#148 | 33.7% |
Villanovaoffense vsNotre Damedefense
Share of shots by zone
Villanova shoots
34.9
6.0
13.6
45.6
Notre Dame allows
28.2
6.7
17.3
47.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 61.6%#81 | 62.8%#320 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.5%#91 | 45.0%#296 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.4%#280 | 39.9%#237 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#77 | 33.2%#138 | 33.7% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbersNotre Dame
−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#226 of 365
Off reb %
31.2%
#155
Def reb %
73.3%
#27
Turnover %
17.0%
#202
Forced TO %
14.0%
#337
FT rate
34.1%
#206
FT allowed
36.2%
#214
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−1.9
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed−0.2
Villanova
+3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#53 of 365
Off reb %
32.2%
#118
Def reb %
68.2%
#246
Turnover %
15.0%
#66
Forced TO %
18.6%
#69
FT rate
30.9%
#284
FT allowed
30.0%
#59
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.6
Defensive rebounding−0.4
Ball security+1.2
Forcing turnovers+1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.0
Foul shots allowed+1.3
Villanova has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.0 (#53 of 365) to Notre Dame’s −0.9 (#226).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Notre Dame2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | G | Sr | 6'4" | 3-3 | 30.3 | 14.7 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 61.1% | 42.9% | 9.3 | 0.0% | 24.7% | |
| 3 | G | Sr | 6'0" | 3-3 | 28.7 | 12.7 | 3.7 | 7.0 | 1.3 | 55.3% | 60.0% | 1.7 | 89.5% | 21.6% | |
| 23 | G | Sr | 6'5" | 3-3 | 27.0 | 14.3 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 72.9% | 58.3% | 4.0 | 100.0% | 22.7% | |
| 6 | F | So | 6'10" | 3-3 | 24.3 | 15.7 | 6.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 74.0% | 70.0% | 3.3 | 71.4% | 26.6% | |
| 51 | C | Sr | 6'10" | 3-3 | 20.3 | 10.3 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 76.3% | 50.0% | 0.7 | 28.6% | 28.7% | |
| 2 | G | Sr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 15.7 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 53.8% | 25.0% | 2.7 | 100.0% | 22.0% | |
| 10 | G | Fr | 6'3" | 3-0 | 12.7 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 28.6% | 22.2% | 3.0 | 100.0% | 28.9% | |
| 15 | C | So | 6'10" | 3-0 | 11.3 | 4.3 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 36.4% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 26.5% | |
| 4 | F | Jr | 6'9" | 3-0 | 10.3 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 7.3% | |
| 7 | F | Sr | 6'9" | 3-0 | 7.3 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 13.2% | |
| 5 | G | So | 6'6" | 3-0 | 6.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 0.7 | 100.0% | 11.6% | |
| 12 | G | Fr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 28.7% | |
| 44 | C | Fr | 7'0" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 0 | G | Jr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 62.6% | |
| 8 | G | Fr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 22 | F | So | 6'7" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 62.6% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Notre Dame
Against the spread
Season
15-16
Home
8-9
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.9
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
22-9
Home
14-3
Road
8-3
Last 10
9-1
avg vs total +10.1
Over 8 straightOver in 6 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Boston College | A | L 69–77 | −2.5 | L−10.5 | 142.0 | O146 | 91.7 | 102.4 | 75.2 |
| Mar 4 | Stanford | H | L 78–86 | +1.0 | L−7.0 | 147.0 | O164 | 122.9 | 135.5 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | NC State | H | W 96–90 OT | +6.5 | W+12.5 | 155.0 | O186 | 134.5 | 126.1 | 71.4 |
| Feb 24 | #1Duke | H | L 56–100 | +17.0 | L−27.0 | 142.0 | O156 | 78.3 | 139.8 | 71.5 |
| Feb 21 | Pitt | A | L 68–73 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 108.4 | 116.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | Georgia Tech | H | W 89–74 | −6.0 | W+9.0 | 150.0 | O163 | 129.3 | 107.5 | 68.8 |
| Feb 10 | SMU | A | L 81–89 | +10.5 | W+2.5 | 154.0 | O170 | 117.2 | 128.8 | 69.1 |
| Feb 7 | Florida St | H | L 79–82 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 153.0 | O161 | 109.1 | 113.2 | 72.4 |
| Feb 4 | #24Louisville | A | L 65–76 | +18.0 | W+7.0 | 155.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 110.0 | 69.1 |
| Jan 31 | Syracuse | A | L 72–86 | +5.0 | L−9.0 | 147.5 | O158 | 107.1 | 127.9 | 67.2 |
Villanova
Against the spread
Season
18-14-1
Home
8-9
Road
8-3-1
Last 10
2-8
avg cover −4.4
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 2 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
20-13
Home
11-6
Road
7-5
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +6.5
Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #9Utah State | N | L 76–86 | +2.0 | L−8.0 | 147.5 | O162 | 111.5 | 126.2 | 68.1 |
| Mar 12 | Georgetown | N | L 64–78 | −6.5 | L−20.5 | 141.0 | O142 | 99.4 | 121.1 | 64.4 |
| Mar 7 | Xavier | H | W 91–78 | −13.5 | L−0.5 | 154.0 | O169 | 128.2 | 109.9 | 71.0 |
| Mar 4 | DePaul | A | W 76–57 | −2.0 | W+17.0 | 136.5 | U133 | 108.2 | 81.1 | 70.3 |
| Feb 28 | #15St John's | A | L 57–89 | +7.5 | L−24.5 | 148.0 | U146 | 78.6 | 122.8 | 72.5 |
| Feb 25 | Butler | H | W 82–73 | −10.5 | L−1.5 | 147.0 | O155 | 116.7 | 103.9 | 70.2 |
| Feb 21 | #5UConn | H | L 63–73 | +3.0 | L−7.0 | 141.0 | U136 | 100.1 | 116.0 | 62.9 |
| Feb 17 | Xavier | A | W 92–89 OT | −4.0 | L−1.0 | 153.5 | O181 | 116.7 | 112.9 | 78.8 |
| Feb 14 | Creighton | A | W 80–69 | −2.5 | W+8.5 | 146.0 | O149 | 115.3 | 99.5 | 69.4 |
| Feb 10 | Marquette | H | W 77–74 | −9.5 | L−6.5 | 145.0 | O151 | 109.8 | 105.5 | 70.1 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Team comparison
national rank toned left for away, right for homeNotre DameVillanova
Efficiency
111.4
115.0
107.9
104.1
67.4
66.8
Shooting
52.3%
53.8%
51.4%
54.0%
35.6%
35.7%
69.7%
68.9%
34.1%
30.9%
Ball control & glass
17.0%
15.0%
14.0%
18.6%
31.2%
32.2%
26.7%
31.8%
9.1%
7.6%
8.8%
7.3%
Style
43.5%
45.7%
40.2%
40.3%
9.8%
11.7%
47.4%
56.8%
31.4%
27.3%
Roster
3.45
3.65
6'5.8"
6'4.7"
34.3%
26.8%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputNotre Dame
Returning minutes: 34.3%Returning production: 29.4%
Lost
- Cole Certa 26.9 mpg, 12.8 ppg · transferred to Clemson
- Carson Towt 26.0 mpg, 5.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jalen Haralson 23.2 mpg, 14.1 ppg · transferred to Tennessee
- Garrett Sundra 17.9 mpg, 3.5 ppg · transferred to James Madison
- Sir Mohammed 16.4 mpg, 5.7 ppg · transferred to Penn
- Markus Burton 9.7 mpg, 6.0 ppg · transferred to Indiana
Added
- Ethan Roberts from Penn · 23.4 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
- Devin Brown from Davidson · 23.4 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
- Logan Duncomb from Winthrop · 22.9 mpg, 17.2 ppg last season
- Braeden Smith from Gonzaga · 17.1 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season
- Bryce Ruglass Dortch from Rutgers · 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg last season
- Luke Devine no D1 minutes last season
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (2 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Villanova
Returning minutes: 26.8%Returning production: 26.5%
Lost
- Acaden Lewis 30.5 mpg, 12.2 ppg · transferred to Miami
- Duke Brennan 30.1 mpg, 12.1 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma
- Bryce Lindsay 28.5 mpg, 12.3 ppg · transferred to Indiana
- Devin Askew 23.1 mpg, 9.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Malachi Palmer 18.3 mpg, 4.6 ppg · transferred to Minnesota
- Braden Pierce 5.9 mpg, 1.1 ppg · transferred to Charleston
Added
- Darryl Simmons II from St Bonaventure · 35.5 mpg, 16.4 ppg last season
- Devin Royal from Ohio State · 30.6 mpg, 12.9 ppg last season
- Kwame Evans Jr. from Oregon · 29.0 mpg, 12.5 ppg last season
- Jake Fiegen from Cornell · 22.4 mpg, 14.6 ppg last season
- Elijah Crawford from UIC · 17.0 mpg, 9.3 ppg last season
- Abdou Samb from Towson · 1.6 mpg, 0.2 ppg last season
Returns 27% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (3 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Line history
Market line, home spread or game totalLines by book
| Book | Spread (home) open → now | Total open → now | ML home | ML away |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DraftKings | -7.5-115 | 149.5→145.5o-105 u-115 | -298 | +240 |
| FanDuel | -7.5-120 | 148.5→145.5o-110 u-110 | -310 | +245 |
| BetMGM | -7.5→-6.5-105 | 147.5→145.5o-110 u-110 | -300 | +240 |
| BetRivers | -7.5-120 | 148.5→146.5o-107 u-117 | -335 | +255 |
| Caesars | -7.5→-7-110 | 147.5→145.5o-110 u-110 | -305 | +240 |
| Fanatics | -7.5→-7-110 | 148.5→145.5o-110 u-110 | -320 | +250 |
| BetOnline | -8→-7-110 | 148.5→145.5o-107 u-113 | -300 | +245 |
| Bovada | -7-115 | 147.5→145.5o-110 u-110 | -300 | +250 |
| theScore Bet | -7.5-110 | 148.5→145.5o-105 u-115 | -300 | +250 |
| Hard Rock | -7.5-115 | 148.5→145.5o-115 u-105 | -325 | +260 |
| Kalshi | -6.5+108 | — | -300 | +285 |
| Polymarket | — | — | -300 | +285 |
| Novig | -7.5→— | 148.5→145.5o+100 u-104 | -300 | +292 |
DraftKings
FanDuel
BetMGM
BetRivers
Caesars
Fanatics
BetOnline
Bovada
theScore Bet
Hard Rock
Kalshi
Polymarket
Novigopen = first-sighted line for this event · now = latest capture
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — the market spread and total (the median across books when no market line is up). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, from our line: the same view our bets are made from.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.