Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1358th
  Defense+0.0949th
• 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.
  Offense44.5%65th
  Defense39.6%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2366th
  Defense+1.3412th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1272nd
  Defense−0.0791st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1343rd
  Defense+0.2231st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%47th
  Defense43.0%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.8%83rd
  Defense33.4%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0878th
  Defense2.2697th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%80th
  Defense23.9%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.8%14th
  Defense1.7%33rd

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, 2015

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. L
   BYU
2. W
   USA
3. L
   MIA
4. W
   USM
5. L
   ILL
6. L
   WIS
7. W
   MINN
8. L
   NU
9. L
   PUR
10. W
    MSU
11. W
    RUTG
12. L
    IOWA
13. W
    UCLA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2015

1. Tommy Armstrong Jr.QB418 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 30th of 205 QBs
   1.92WAR1.22 to 2.56
2. Jordan WesterkampWR74 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 40th of 411 WRs
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.37
3. Terrell NewbyRB142 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 112th of 333 RBs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.32
4. Imani CrossRB106 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 116th of 333 RBs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
5. Brandon ReillyWR59 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 75th of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
6. Drew BrownPK21 plays · +0.415 pts/play · 25th of 115 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
7. Sam FoltzP53 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 25th of 92 punters
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.23
8. Alonzo MooreWR41 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 239th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70070024th of 128Roster talent: 700, 24th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20620633rd of 128Recruiting: 206, 33rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%61st of 127Returning production: 64%, 61st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.1+11.133rd of 128SP+ rating: +11.1, 33rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.23 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 UCLAQ3 4:50 4th & 1 at UCLA 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. vs BYUQ4 12:12 4th & 1 at NEB 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.6 pts
3. vs IOWAQ3 13:02 4th & 1 at NEB 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at PURQ2 4:12 4th & 1 at NEB 29, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at MIAQ2 13:22 4th & 3 at MIA 47, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at ILLQ3 9:33 4th & 7 at ILL 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs IOWAQ4 1:17 4th & 10 at IOWA 24, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at MIAQ4 3:46 4th & 12 at MIA 21, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

121st 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. L

   BYU
2. W

   USA
3. L

   MIA
4. W

   USM
5. L

   ILL
6. L

   WIS
7. W

   MINN
8. L

   NU
9. L

   PUR
10. W

    MSU
11. W

    RUTG
12. L

    IOWA
13. W

    UCLA

What moved it, 2015

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−1.42
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.46

Game by game

• BYUL 28-33 vs BYU72% → 4%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• USAW 48-9 vs USA96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MIAL 33-36 at MIA35% → 21%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +22
• USMW 36-28 vs USM94% → 92%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position −1
• ILLL 13-14 at ILL69% → 27%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −9, Possession & field position −2
• WISL 21-23 vs WIS53% → 7%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• MINNW 48-25 at MINN56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• NUL 28-30 vs NU70% → 6%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• PURL 45-55 at PUR77% → 3%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• MSUW 39-38 vs MSU38% → 71%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position −2
• RUTGW 31-14 at RUTG75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• IOWAL 20-28 vs IOWA49% → 3%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• UCLAW 37-29 vs UCLA31% → 97%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +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.