Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0625th
  Defense+0.0768th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%34th
  Defense43.0%49th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2051st
  Defense+1.1376th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0544th
  Defense+0.1039th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1026th
  Defense+0.0678th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%40th
  Defense47.9%46th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%30th
  Defense33.3%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6821st
  Defense3.0926th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%28th
  Defense18.2%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.9%45th
  Defense25.5%93rd

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, 2019

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
   USA
2. L
   COLO
3. W
   NIU
4. W
   ILL
5. L
   OSU
6. W
   NU
7. L
   MINN
8. L
   IU
9. L
   PUR
10. L
    WIS
11. W
    MD
12. L
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2019

1. Adrian MartinezQB319 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 53rd of 228 QBs
   1.30WAR0.77 to 1.91
2. Dedrick MillsRB130 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 76th of 349 RBs
   0.46WAR0.36 to 0.55
3. Wan'Dale RobinsonWR128 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 27th of 439 WRs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.38
4. JD SpielmanWR63 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 47th of 439 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.32
5. Noah VedralQB64 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 179th of 228 QBs
   0.20WAR0.07 to 0.34
6. Maurice WashingtonRB51 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 229th of 349 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
7. Isaac ArmstrongP50 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 44th of 100 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.14
8. Kanawai NoaWR25 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 324th of 439 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72972924th of 130Roster talent: 729, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22922924th of 130Recruiting: 229, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%45th of 130Returning production: 70%, 45th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.6+2.654th of 130SP+ rating: +2.6, 54th 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, 2019

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.26 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 8:25 4th & 1 at NEB 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it4.9 pts
2. vs IOWAQ4 10:52 4th & 1 at NEB 11, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it4.9 pts
3. vs IUQ3 2:53 4th & 1 at IU 12, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it4.1 pts
4. vs NUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at NEB 18, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it3.5 pts
5. vs IUQ2 5:25 4th & 1 at NEB 12, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
6. vs IOWAQ4 14:26 4th & 2 at NEB 17, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
7. vs NIUQ1 2:15 4th & 1 at NEB 29, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
8. vs IUQ3 11:26 4th & 2 at NEB 16, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

119th 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

   USA
2. L

   COLO
3. W

   NIU
4. W

   ILL
5. L

   OSU
6. W

   NU
7. L

   MINN
8. L

   IU
9. L

   PUR
10. L

    WIS
11. W

    MD
12. L

    IOWA

What moved it, 2019

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−1.40
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.48

Game by game

• USAW 35-21 vs USA99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +5
• COLOL 31-34 at COLO63% → 22%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +25
• NIUW 44-8 vs NIU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• ILLW 42-38 at ILL83% → 92%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• OSUL 7-48 vs OSU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• NUW 13-10 vs NU76% → 94%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position −1
• MINNL 7-34 at MINN29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31
• IUL 31-38 vs IU56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• PURL 27-31 at PUR64% → 4%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −2
• WISL 21-37 vs WIS19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• MDW 54-7 at MD70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• IOWAL 24-27 vs IOWA42% → 5%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −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.