Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0941st
  Defense+0.1436th
• 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.
  Offense39.2%23rd
  Defense43.7%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2030th
  Defense+1.2646th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0217th
  Defense+0.1326th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1853rd
  Defense+0.1554th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%27th
  Defense47.9%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.0%24th
  Defense33.9%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.607th
  Defense2.9147th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%21st
  Defense19.4%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%46th
  Defense17.6%79th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   BUF
2. W
   NWST
3. L
   CAL
4. W
   RUTG
5. L
   OSU
6. W
   PUR
7. W
   NEB
8. L
   IOWA
9. W
   MSU
10. L
    ORE
11. L
    NU
12. W
    WIS
13. W
    UNM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2025

1. Drake LindseyQB352 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 38th of 231 QBs
   1.51WAR0.79 to 2.16
2. Javon TracyWR58 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 42nd of 451 WRs
   0.24WAR0.14 to 0.33
3. Le'Meke BrockingtonWR55 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 59th of 451 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.28
4. Darius TaylorRB113 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 119th of 365 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.27
5. Fame IjeboiRB76 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 192nd of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
6. Jameson GeersTE35 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 35th of 213 TEs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Brady DenaburgPK17 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 75th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
8. Cam DavisRB36 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 268th of 365 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71171141st of 134Roster talent: 711, 41st of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20120141st of 134Recruiting: 201, 41st of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%76th of 132Returning production: 28%, 76th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.5+1.569th of 134SP+ rating: +1.5, 69th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.13 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 UNMQ4 6:53 4th & 7 at UNM 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. vs MSUQ3 5:50 4th & 1 at MINN 19, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. vs MSUQ4 2:59 4th & 4 at MINN 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. vs NEBQ2 9:53 4th & 1 at MINN 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs MSUQ3 11:40 4th & 5 at MSU 42, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs BUFQ4 0:00 4th & 1 at BUF 18, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs UNMQ4 3:46 4th & 7 at UNM 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at NUQ3 4:42 4th & 5 at NU 30, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

28th of 136 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

   BUF
2. W

   NWST
3. L

   CAL
4. W

   RUTG
5. L

   OSU
6. W

   PUR
7. W

   NEB
8. L

   IOWA
9. W

   MSU
10. L

    ORE
11. L

    NU
12. W

    WIS
13. W

    UNM

What moved it, 2025

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+1.19
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.39
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• BUFW 23-10 vs BUF85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• NWSTW 66-0 vs NWST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• CALL 14-27 at CAL63% → 3%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −76, Timeouts +24
• RUTGW 31-28 vs RUTG56% → 65%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts −46
• OSUL 3-42 at OSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• PURW 27-20 vs PUR72% → 93%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +2
• NEBW 24-6 vs NEB28% → 99%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts +1
• IOWAL 3-41 at IOWA30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• MSUW 23-20 vs MSU60% → 84%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −22
• OREL 13-42 at ORE4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• NUL 35-38 at NU40% → 16%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• WISW 17-7 vs WIS43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• UNMW 20-17 vs UNM68% → 91%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29, Clock −4

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.