Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1774th
  Defense+0.1433rd
• 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.
  Offense48.7%89th
  Defense45.2%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1425th
  Defense+1.2053rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2291st
  Defense+0.197th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1442nd
  Defense+0.1159th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.7%94th
  Defense48.4%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%61st
  Defense38.5%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2788th
  Defense3.2411th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%58th
  Defense14.8%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.5%26th
  Defense17.8%72nd

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, 2018

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
   COLO
2. L
   TROY
3. L
   MICH
4. L
   PUR
5. L
   WIS
6. L
   NU
7. W
   MINN
8. W
   BCU
9. L
   OSU
10. W
    ILL
11. W
    MSU
12. L
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2018

1. Adrian MartinezQB411 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 32nd of 225 QBs
   1.80WAR1.07 to 2.47
2. Devine OzigboRB165 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 54th of 351 RBs
   0.52WAR0.41 to 0.64
3. Maurice WashingtonRB88 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 175th of 351 RBs
   0.25WAR0.20 to 0.32
4. Andrew BunchQB59 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 181st of 225 QBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.29
5. Stanley Morgan Jr.WR84 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 58th of 434 WRs
   0.18WAR0.05 to 0.30
6. JD SpielmanWR73 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 59th of 434 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.28
7. Barret PickeringPK16 plays · +0.367 pts/play · 47th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. Caleb LightbournP24 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 48th of 91 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71171125th of 130Roster talent: 711, 25th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22022025th of 130Recruiting: 220, 25th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%98th of 129Returning production: 44%, 98th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.4+5.449th of 130SP+ rating: +5.4, 49th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.15 of the 0.20 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 OSUQ4 7:46 4th & 1 at OSU 1, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.8 pts
2. at NUQ4 10:57 4th & 1 at NEB 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. at OSUQ3 2:58 4th & 1 at NEB 13, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs MSUQ4 8:07 4th & 3 at MSU 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs MSUQ4 5:13 4th & 5 at MSU 30, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at IOWAQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at IOWA 29, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs MSUQ3 6:21 4th & 2 at NEB 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs ILLQ3 12:00 4th & 9 at ILL 24, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

122nd 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. L

   COLO
2. L

   TROY
3. L

   MICH
4. L

   PUR
5. L

   WIS
6. L

   NU
7. W

   MINN
8. W

   BCU
9. L

   OSU
10. W

    ILL
11. W

    MSU
12. L

    IOWA

What moved it, 2018

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−1.66
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• COLOL 28-33 vs COLO59% → 11%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −45, Clock −4
• TROYL 19-24 vs TROY79% → 9%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −50, Possession & field position −2
• MICHL 10-56 at MICH11% → 2%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −17
• PURL 28-42 vs PUR38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• WISL 24-41 at WIS11% → 2%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −16
• NUL 31-34 at NU41% → 21%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +23
• MINNW 53-28 vs MINN64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• BCUW 45-9 vs BCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• OSUL 31-36 at OSU10% → 4%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• ILLW 54-35 vs ILL87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• MSUW 9-6 vs MSU48% → 88%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• IOWAL 28-31 at IOWA26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27, 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.