Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1562nd
  Defense0.0089th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%70th
  Defense38.4%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1610th
  Defense+1.1681st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0634th
  Defense−0.0283rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2471st
  Defense+0.0483rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.8%79th
  Defense44.9%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.7%42nd
  Defense25.4%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7517th
  Defense2.6685th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%38th
  Defense18.3%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%57th
  Defense19.8%88th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. L
   UNC
2. W
   URI
3. W
   NEV
4. L
   IOWA
5. L
   MICH
6. W
   USC
7. W
   UCLA
8. W
   MD
9. W
   ILL
10. L
    RUTG
11. L
    PSU
12. W
    WIS
13. W
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2024

1. Max BrosmerQB380 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 56th of 232 QBs
   1.51WAR0.93 to 2.22
2. Darius TaylorRB200 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 14th of 373 RBs
   0.55WAR0.36 to 0.70
3. Elijah SpencerWR45 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 41st of 452 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.30
4. Marcus MajorRB79 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 171st of 373 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
5. Dragan KesichPK21 plays · +0.280 pts/play · 25th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Mark CrawfordP47 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 41st of 106 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.13
7. Daniel JacksonWR63 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 212th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.10 to 0.22
8. Jameson GeersTE24 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 65th of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.10

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70570545th of 131Roster talent: 705, 45th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020039th of 131Recruiting: 200, 39th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%51st of 130Returning production: 55%, 51st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.4+10.427th of 131SP+ rating: +10.4, 27th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.16 of the 0.21 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 UCLAQ4 2:53 4th & 6 at UCLA 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.3 pts
2. at ILLQ4 11:11 4th & 12 at MINN 44, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.1 pts
3. at ILLQ4 11:11 4th & 12 at MINN 44, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.1 pts
4. at UCLAQ4 12:44 4th & 2 at MINN 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
5. at RUTGQ2 0:59 4th & 4 at RUTG 42, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs USCQ4 14:54 4th & 8 at USC 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at RUTGQ4 1:10 4th & 6 at RUTG 12, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at UCLAQ2 5:11 4th & 4 at UCLA 25, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

44th of 134 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. L

   UNC
2. W

   URI
3. W

   NEV
4. L

   IOWA
5. L

   MICH
6. W

   USC
7. W

   UCLA
8. W

   MD
9. W

   ILL
10. L

    RUTG
11. L

    PSU
12. W

    WIS
13. W

    VT

What moved it, 2024

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+0.89
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.08

Game by game

• UNCL 17-19 vs UNC49% → 19%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• URIW 48-0 vs URI97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• NEVW 27-0 vs NEV89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• IOWAL 14-31 vs IOWA43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• MICHL 24-27 at MICH26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28
• USCW 24-17 vs USC29% → 98%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +2
• UCLAW 21-17 at UCLA63% → 83%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +36, Clock +4
• MDW 48-23 vs MD67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −2
• ILLW 25-17 at ILL59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• RUTGL 19-26 at RUTG68% → 3%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −3
• PSUL 25-26 vs PSU19% → 12%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −8
• WISW 24-7 at WIS52% → 99%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• VTW 24-10 at VT73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +35, Clock +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.