Nebraska

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+0.3088th
  Defense−0.0588th
• 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.
  Offense47.4%72nd
  Defense33.4%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3992nd
  Defense+1.3814th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3398th
  Defense−0.0580th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2761st
  Defense−0.1096th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%66th
  Defense43.1%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.3%89th
  Defense17.9%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2570th
  Defense2.7169th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%57th
  Defense20.0%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%73rd
  Defense18.5%80th

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 Nebraska 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
   OHIO
2. W
   BGSU
3. W
   UND
4. W
   MSU
5. W
   MD
6. L
   IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2026

1. Anthony ColandreaQB180 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 6th of 192 QBs
   0.65WAR0.36 to 0.92
2. Mekhi NelsonRB47 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 97th of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
3. Jacory Barney Jr.WR25 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 91st of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
4. Jamal RuleRB32 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 162nd of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. Kwazi GilmerWR41 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 121st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.12
6. Luke LindenmeyerTE23 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 21st of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Isaiah MozeeRB26 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 205th of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
8. Nyziah HunterWR11 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05

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 Nebraska'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.
  78778722nd of 138Roster talent: 787, 22nd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22322326th of 138Recruiting: 223, 26th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%59th of 136Returning production: 46%, 59th 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.
  +16.9+16.914th of 138SP+ rating so far: +16.9, 14th 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 Nebraska's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.01 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 MDQ3 10:56 4th & 6 at MD 33, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
2. vs UNDQ2 8:48 4th & 5 at UND 36, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
3. vs UNDQ4 5:26 4th & 3 at UND 43, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
4. vs OHIOQ2 6:11 4th & 3 at NEB 43, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs UNDQ3 10:35 4th & 4 at NEB 27, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
6. at MSUQ4 1:06 4th & 4 at MSU 13, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

52nd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   OHIO
2. W

   BGSU
3. W

   UND
4. W

   MSU
5. W

   MD
6. L

   IU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Nebraska'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+0.55
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.02

Game by game

• OHIOW 49-21 vs OHIO93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• BGSUW 56-7 vs BGSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UNDW 34-7 vs UND96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MSUW 31-13 at MSU65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts −2
• MDW 48-23 vs MD81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts −1
• IUL 17-20 vs IU29% → 15%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −33, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Nebraska's side.

Closest call

MSU 38-39 NEB (2015) - Nebraska dropped to a 6.3% win probability before pulling it out.