Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1253rd
  Defense+0.1443rd
• 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.
  Offense47.3%84th
  Defense42.2%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.022nd
  Defense+1.2834th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1677th
  Defense+0.0943rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0731st
  Defense+0.1947th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.5%94th
  Defense45.6%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.
  Offense25.3%14th
  Defense34.3%30th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0166th
  Defense2.7368th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%42nd
  Defense23.6%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%31st
  Defense17.0%56th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   OSU
2. L
   NU
3. W
   PSU
4. L
   ILL
5. L
   IOWA
6. W
   PUR
7. L
   MINN
8. W
   RUTG

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2020

1. Adrian MartinezQB222 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 42nd of 212 QBs
   0.76WAR0.31 to 1.18
2. Dedrick MillsRB93 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 77th of 338 RBs
   0.35WAR0.27 to 0.41
3. Wan'Dale RobinsonWR101 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 75th of 409 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
4. Luke McCaffreyWR55 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 89th of 409 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.19
5. Connor CulpPK13 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 32nd of 97 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Austin AllenTE22 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 36th of 191 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.06
7. Travis VokolekTE14 plays · +0.040 pts/play · 92nd of 191 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03
8. Rahmir JohnsonRB6 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 318th of 338 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73373325th of 127Roster talent: 733, 25th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23423421st of 127Recruiting: 234, 21st of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%66th of 127Returning production: 62%, 66th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.7+7.735th of 127SP+ rating: +7.7, 35th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.16 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 NUQ4 0:07 4th & 4 at NU 14, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−11.8 pts
2. at PURQ3 5:37 4th & 1 at NEB 20, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs PSUQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at PSU 7, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at RUTGQ2 0:23 4th & 3 at RUTG 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at PURQ1 5:59 4th & 4 at PUR 6, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs ILLQ4 6:49 4th & 18 at ILL 34, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at RUTGQ1 6:20 4th & 4 at RUTG 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at OSUQ1 1:26 4th & 2 at NEB 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

95th of 127 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

   OSU
2. L

   NU
3. W

   PSU
4. L

   ILL
5. L

   IOWA
6. W

   PUR
7. L

   MINN
8. W

   RUTG

What moved it, 2020

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−0.42
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.26

Game by game

• OSUL 17-52 at OSU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• NUL 13-21 at NU37% → 7%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• PSUW 30-23 vs PSU40% → 98%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• ILLL 23-41 vs ILL87% → 2%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −86: Scoreboard −62, Clock −1
• IOWAL 20-26 at IOWA22% → 5%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• PURW 37-27 at PUR45% → 96%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• MINNL 17-24 vs MINN75% → 4%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• RUTGW 28-21 at RUTG68% → 96%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2

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.