Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0320th
  Defense+0.0564th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense41.3%33rd
  Defense41.4%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1626th
  Defense+1.1961st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.151st
  Defense+0.1916th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2046th
  Defense+0.0577th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%59th
  Defense45.5%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.0%9th
  Defense33.3%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.171st
  Defense3.2615th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.2%7th
  Defense16.1%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.3%54th
  Defense21.5%96th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Minnesota allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   EIU
2. L
   MSST
3. W
   AKR
4. W
   WASH
5. W
   MICH
6. L
   PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2026

1. Drake LindseyQB144 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 49th of 192 QBs
   0.35WAR0.13 to 0.55
2. Darius TaylorRB65 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 73rd of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
3. Javon TracyWR34 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 51st of 364 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
4. TJ ThomasRB44 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
5. Noah JenningsWR38 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 121st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11
6. Luke DrzewieckiPK9 plays · +0.347 pts/play · 4th of 82 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
7. Jalen SmithWR17 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 215th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
8. Tom WestonP21 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 38th of 84 punters
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.06

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Minnesota's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72972941st of 138Roster talent: 729, 41st of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21021038th of 138Recruiting: 210, 38th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%33rd of 136Returning production: 65%, 33rd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.9+2.960th of 138SP+ rating so far: +2.9, 60th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Minnesota's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.08 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at WASHQ3 0:54 4th & 1 at WASH 13, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at WASHQ4 0:03 4th & 11 at WASH 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
3. at PURQ2 10:48 4th & 2 at PUR 31, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at PURQ2 0:10 4th & 6 at PUR 39, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs MSSTQ1 2:58 4th & 3 at MSST 26, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at PURQ3 4:45 4th & 3 at PUR 18, down 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at WASHQ1 6:52 4th & 2 at WASH 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at PURQ1 10:21 4th & 4 at PUR 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

47th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Minnesota's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   EIU
2. L

   MSST
3. W

   AKR
4. W

   WASH
5. W

   MICH
6. L

   PUR

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Minnesota's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.09
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.30

Game by game

• EIUW 59-7 vs EIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MSSTL 13-38 vs MSST52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −55
• AKRW 41-7 vs AKR93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• WASHW 27-24 at WASH21% → 85%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +44, Clock +4
• MICHW 20-14 vs MICH32% → 97%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• PURL 13-41 at PUR61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −54

Points of win probability, from Minnesota's side.

Closest call

GASO 32-35 MINN (2019) - Minnesota dropped to a 1.5% win probability before pulling it out.