Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0220th
  Defense+0.2113th
• 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.
  Offense40.0%24th
  Defense51.0%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2467th
  Defense+1.0888th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0416th
  Defense+0.241st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0935th
  Defense+0.1934th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%37th
  Defense55.3%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.1%16th
  Defense39.1%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7433rd
  Defense3.1818th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%43rd
  Defense14.7%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.3%12th
  Defense12.9%9th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   ARST
2. L
   ORE
3. L
   NIU
4. W
   RUTG
5. W
   ILL
6. L
   WIS
7. L
   OSU
8. W
   PUR
9. L
   NU
10. L
    MINN
11. L
    PSU
12. L
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2017

1. Tanner LeeQB348 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 61st of 226 QBs
   1.19WAR0.53 to 1.88
2. Devine OzigboRB109 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 155th of 352 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.29
3. Mikale WilbonRB97 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 171st of 352 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
4. JD SpielmanWR78 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 52nd of 426 WRs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.24
5. Stanley Morgan Jr.WR73 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 55th of 426 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.25
6. Drew BrownPK13 plays · +0.554 pts/play · 31st of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
7. De'Mornay Pierson-ElWR52 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 127th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. Tre BryantRB43 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 233rd of 352 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69369329th of 130Roster talent: 693, 29th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21321327th of 130Recruiting: 213, 27th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  19%19%126th of 128Returning production: 19%, 126th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.5+2.562nd of 128SP+ rating: +2.5, 62nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.19 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. vs NUQ4 1:00 4th & 5 at NU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.8 pts
2. at PURQ4 6:52 4th & 6 at PUR 15, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.6 pts
3. at MINNQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at NEB 30, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs IOWAQ3 12:24 4th & 1 at NEB 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at MINNQ2 11:42 4th & 1 at NEB 36, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs NIUQ4 3:09 4th & 14 at NEB 16, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs ARSTQ3 3:21 4th & 8 at ARST 38, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs ARSTQ4 9:26 4th & 5 at ARST 40, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

101st of 130 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

   ARST
2. L

   ORE
3. L

   NIU
4. W

   RUTG
5. W

   ILL
6. L

   WIS
7. L

   OSU
8. W

   PUR
9. L

   NU
10. L

    MINN
11. L

    PSU
12. L

    IOWA

What moved it, 2017

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−1.23
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• ARSTW 43-36 vs ARST82% → 85%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position −3
• OREL 35-42 at ORE19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• NIUL 17-21 vs NIU76% → 8%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• RUTGW 27-17 vs RUTG74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• ILLW 28-6 at ILL65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• WISL 17-38 vs WIS19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• OSUL 14-56 vs OSU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• PURW 25-24 at PUR37% → 73%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +2
• NUL 24-31 vs NU49% → 17%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −18
• MINNL 21-54 at MINN46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −1
• PSUL 44-56 at PSU3% → 3%Before kickoff −47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −9
• IOWAL 14-56 vs IOWA38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, 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.