Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1756th
  Defense+0.1164th
• 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.
  Offense45.6%69th
  Defense39.3%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1948th
  Defense+1.2436th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1566th
  Defense+0.1431st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2354th
  Defense+0.1375th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%68th
  Defense44.2%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%65th
  Defense29.9%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1880th
  Defense3.0231st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%70th
  Defense17.2%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense2.1%58th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   FAU
2. W
   MCN
3. W
   FRES
4. W
   MIA
5. W
   ILL
6. L
   MSU
7. W
   NU
8. W
   RUTG
9. W
   PUR
10. L
    WIS
11. L
    MINN
12. W
    IOWA
13. L
    USC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2014

1. Tommy Armstrong Jr.QB352 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 45th of 199 QBs
   1.75WAR1.13 to 2.34
2. Ameer AbdullahRB244 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 8th of 350 RBs
   0.67WAR0.46 to 0.88
3. Drew BrownPK19 plays · +0.415 pts/play · 23rd of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
4. Kenny BellWR63 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
5. Jordan WesterkampWR39 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.19
6. Sam FoltzP42 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 41st of 94 punters
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.18
7. Imani CrossRB48 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 219th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. De'Mornay Pierson-ElWR32 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 292nd of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 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 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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.19 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 USCQ4 2:31 4th & 3 at USC 31, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
2. vs MIAQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at MIA 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs MINNQ3 7:19 4th & 1 at MINN 12, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at WISQ2 1:57 4th & 11 at NEB 25, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
5. at NUQ3 11:01 4th & 8 at NU 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs RUTGQ4 12:18 4th & 1 at RUTG 40, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at IOWAQ4 7:06 4th & 3 at NEB 19, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs MIAQ4 9:21 4th & 3 at MIA 21, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

62nd of 128 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

   FAU
2. W

   MCN
3. W

   FRES
4. W

   MIA
5. W

   ILL
6. L

   MSU
7. W

   NU
8. W

   RUTG
9. W

   PUR
10. L

    WIS
11. L

    MINN
12. W

    IOWA
13. L

    USC

What moved it, 2014

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+0.53
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.56

Game by game

• FAUW 55-7 vs FAU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +11
• MCNW 31-24 vs MCN96% → 93%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position +1
• FRESW 55-19 at FRES82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• MIAW 41-31 vs MIA70% → 97%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position +1
• ILLW 45-14 vs ILL91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• MSUL 22-27 at MSU25% → 4%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• NUW 38-17 at NU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• RUTGW 42-24 vs RUTG85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20
• PURW 35-14 vs PUR94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• WISL 24-59 at WIS39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39
• MINNL 24-28 vs MINN76% → 5%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• IOWAW 37-34 at IOWA45% → 88%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +19
• USCL 42-45 at USC34% → 14%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1

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.