Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1868th
  Defense+0.0280th
• 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.
  Offense47.8%88th
  Defense36.5%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.074th
  Defense+1.2551st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1778th
  Defense+0.0368th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3584th
  Defense+0.1081st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.9%75th
  Defense43.1%85th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.9%96th
  Defense25.1%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2979th
  Defense2.9662nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.2%95th
  Defense16.0%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.4%85th
  Defense13.1%12th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   NMSU
2. W
   WIU
3. W
   COLO
4. W
   MSU
5. L
   PUR
6. L
   ILL
7. L
   PSU
8. W
   RUTG
9. W
   NEB
10. W
    NU
11. L
    IOWA
12. W
    WIS
13. W
    SYR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2022

1. Mohamed IbrahimRB231 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 3rd of 384 RBs
   0.77WAR0.56 to 0.98
2. Tanner MorganQB125 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 122nd of 234 QBs
   0.50WAR0.27 to 0.76
3. Athan KaliakmanisQB117 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 129th of 234 QBs
   0.46WAR0.17 to 0.73
4. Daniel JacksonWR43 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 126th of 455 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
5. Brevyn Spann-FordTE36 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 32nd of 214 TEs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Bryce WilliamsRB29 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 279th of 384 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
7. Trey PottsRB34 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 283rd of 384 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Dylan WrightWR17 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 313th of 455 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64964950th of 129Roster talent: 649, 50th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619643rd of 129Recruiting: 196, 43rd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  87%87%4th of 128Returning production: 87%, 4th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.0+16.016th of 129SP+ rating: +16.0, 16th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2022

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.15 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. vs PURQ4 10:04 4th & 2 at MINN 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. at NEBQ4 2:25 4th & 1 at MINN 47, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at NEBQ2 2:18 4th & 1 at MINN 41, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. at WISQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at WIS 7, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at ILLQ3 4:56 4th & 2 at MINN 42, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at NEBQ3 7:41 4th & 8 at NEB 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs IOWAQ2 0:38 4th & 1 at IOWA 16, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs SYRQ4 10:51 4th & 2 at SYR 47, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

85th of 131 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

   NMSU
2. W

   WIU
3. W

   COLO
4. W

   MSU
5. L

   PUR
6. L

   ILL
7. L

   PSU
8. W

   RUTG
9. W

   NEB
10. W

    NU
11. L

    IOWA
12. W

    WIS
13. W

    SYR

What moved it, 2022

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−0.03
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.62

Game by game

• NMSUW 38-0 vs NMSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• WIUW 62-10 vs WIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• COLOW 49-7 vs COLO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MSUW 34-7 at MSU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• PURL 10-20 vs PUR76% → 4%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• ILLL 14-26 at ILL65% → 2%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2
• PSUL 17-45 at PSU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34
• RUTGW 31-0 vs RUTG83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• NEBW 20-13 at NEB84% → 95%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• NUW 31-3 vs NU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• IOWAL 10-13 vs IOWA55% → 5%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• WISW 23-16 at WIS42% → 88%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• SYRW 28-20 vs SYR78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1

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.