Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0421st
  Defense+0.1726th
• 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.
  Offense40.5%33rd
  Defense42.7%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.106th
  Defense+1.2648th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0842nd
  Defense+0.1715th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0611th
  Defense+0.2634th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.2%35th
  Defense48.1%42nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.9%23rd
  Defense30.3%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1557th
  Defense3.1634th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.9%71st
  Defense15.0%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%81st
  Defense13.8%9th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   NEB
2. W
   EMU
3. L
   UNC
4. L
   NU
5. W
   UL
6. L
   MICH
7. W
   IOWA
8. W
   MSU
9. L
   ILL
10. L
    PUR
11. L
    OSU
12. L
    WIS
13. W
    BGSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2023

1. Athan KaliakmanisQB313 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 89th of 250 QBs
   1.01WAR0.50 to 1.61
2. Darius TaylorRB131 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 32nd of 383 RBs
   0.42WAR0.32 to 0.52
3. Jordan NubinRB101 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 108th of 383 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.33
4. Daniel JacksonWR68 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 43rd of 457 WRs
   0.24WAR0.07 to 0.39
5. Dragan KesichPK21 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 22nd of 113 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Mark CrawfordP57 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 49th of 103 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
7. Sean TylerRB54 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 250th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Corey Crooms Jr.WR28 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 217th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64064057th of 130Roster talent: 640, 57th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719740th of 130Recruiting: 197, 40th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%88th of 128Returning production: 41%, 88th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.4+0.462nd of 130SP+ rating: +0.4, 62nd of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2023

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 12 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.30 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 IOWAQ4 4:41 4th & 6 at IOWA 43, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. vs ILLQ4 8:15 4th & 3 at MINN 48, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs EMUQ3 7:31 4th & 1 at EMU 1, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. at NUQ4 2:07 4th & 3 at NU 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. at IOWAQ2 4:39 4th & 1 at MINN 10, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. at IOWAQ3 8:59 4th & 2 at IOWA 26, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs ILLQ4 2:47 4th & 4 at MINN 45, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. at IOWAQ4 12:58 4th & 6 at IOWA 42, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

90th of 133 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

   NEB
2. W

   EMU
3. L

   UNC
4. L

   NU
5. W

   UL
6. L

   MICH
7. W

   IOWA
8. W

   MSU
9. L

   ILL
10. L

    PUR
11. L

    OSU
12. L

    WIS
13. W

    BGSU

What moved it, 2023

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+0.08
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• NEBW 13-10 vs NEB69% → 96%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• EMUW 25-6 vs EMU90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15
• UNCL 13-31 at UNC28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30
• NUL 34-37 at NU74% → 36%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −1, Possession & field position −1
• ULW 35-24 vs UL73% → 97%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• MICHL 10-52 vs MICH9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• IOWAW 12-10 at IOWA40% → 93%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• MSUW 27-12 vs MSU67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• ILLL 26-27 vs ILL57% → 13%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• PURL 30-49 at PUR54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• OSUL 3-37 at OSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• WISL 14-28 vs WIS42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• BGSUW 30-24 vs BGSU62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2

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.