Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1043rd
  Defense+0.0862nd
• 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.
  Offense43.4%50th
  Defense41.5%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1734th
  Defense+1.2232nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0230th
  Defense+0.0846th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2061st
  Defense+0.0970th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%41st
  Defense46.4%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%57th
  Defense32.1%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7018th
  Defense2.7372nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%9th
  Defense20.8%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%34th
  Defense17.3%66th

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, 2016

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
   FRES
2. W
   WYO
3. W
   ORE
4. W
   NU
5. W
   ILL
6. W
   IU
7. W
   PUR
8. L
   WIS
9. L
   OSU
10. W
    MINN
11. W
    MD
12. L
    IOWA
13. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2016

1. Tommy Armstrong Jr.QB375 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 29th of 218 QBs
   1.82WAR1.22 to 2.43
2. Terrell NewbyRB172 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 69th of 347 RBs
   0.43WAR0.26 to 0.58
3. Devine OzigboRB86 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 171st of 347 RBs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
4. Ryker FyfeQB67 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 161st of 218 QBs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.31
5. Brandon ReillyWR51 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 92nd of 417 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
6. Jordan WesterkampWR41 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 144th of 417 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
7. Caleb LightbournP48 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 39th of 82 punters
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.23
8. Stanley Morgan Jr.WR44 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 147th of 417 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69269226th of 128Roster talent: 692, 26th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21021028th of 128Recruiting: 210, 28th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%17th of 128Returning production: 91%, 17th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.3+10.337th of 128SP+ rating: +10.3, 37th 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, 2016

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.08 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 IUQ2 5:13 4th & 2 at NEB 48, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. vs WYOQ3 11:00 4th & 10 at NEB 45, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at WISQ2 4:13 4th & 8 at WIS 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs MINNQ1 2:42 4th & 2 at MINN 29, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs MINNQ2 4:54 4th & 3 at NEB 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at NUQ2 9:09 4th & 7 at NU 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at IOWAQ3 7:47 4th & 10 at IOWA 13, down 23Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs FRESQ3 7:04 4th & 2 at NEB 28, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

57th 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

   FRES
2. W

   WYO
3. W

   ORE
4. W

   NU
5. W

   ILL
6. W

   IU
7. W

   PUR
8. L

   WIS
9. L

   OSU
10. W

    MINN
11. W

    MD
12. L

    IOWA
13. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2016

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+0.57
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.57

Game by game

• FRESW 43-10 vs FRES97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• WYOW 52-17 vs WYO95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• OREW 35-32 vs ORE63% → 92%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −1
• NUW 24-13 at NU72% → 98%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• ILLW 31-16 vs ILL93% → 98%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +12
• IUW 27-22 at IU72% → 95%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• PURW 27-14 vs PUR94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• WISL 17-23 at WIS37% → 11%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts +16
• OSUL 3-62 at OSU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21
• MINNW 24-17 vs MINN72% → 96%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• MDW 28-7 vs MD85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +19
• IOWAL 10-40 at IOWA47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts +1
• TENNL 24-38 at TENN40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −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.