Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0111th
  Defense+0.0480th
• 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.
  Offense37.8%14th
  Defense37.8%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2652nd
  Defense+1.1391st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0220th
  Defense−0.0589th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2142nd
  Defense+0.1770th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%17th
  Defense44.0%77th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.8%12th
  Defense26.5%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2469th
  Defense3.1930th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.8%81st
  Defense12.1%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.5%2nd
  Defense19.4%88th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   MINN
2. L
   COLO
3. W
   NIU
4. W
   LT
5. L
   MICH
6. W
   ILL
7. W
   NU
8. W
   PUR
9. L
   MSU
10. L
    MD
11. L
    WIS
12. L
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2023

1. Chubba PurdyQB79 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 157th of 250 QBs
   0.32WAR0.13 to 0.51
2. Jeff SimsQB84 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 169th of 250 QBs
   0.27WAR0.11 to 0.45
3. Emmett JohnsonRB89 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 125th of 383 RBs
   0.21WAR0.15 to 0.27
4. Brian BuschiniP55 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 44th of 103 punters
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
5. Anthony GrantRB90 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 240th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.17
6. Thomas Fidone IITE30 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 91st of 212 TEs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
7. Heinrich HaarbergTE81 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 110th of 212 TEs
   0.06WAR−0.06 to 0.17
8. Marcus WashingtonWR9 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 342nd of 457 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76576521st of 130Roster talent: 765, 21st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22022023rd of 130Recruiting: 220, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%123rd of 128Returning production: 14%, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.3+0.364th of 130SP+ rating: +0.3, 64th 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, 2023

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.12 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 WISQ4 6:55 4th & 2 at NEB 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.9 pts
2. vs IOWAQ3 3:06 4th & 1 at NEB 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it2.8 pts
3. vs IOWAQ4 13:15 4th & 4 at IOWA 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it2.7 pts
4. at ILLQ3 8:16 4th & 2 at ILL 13, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
5. vs NUQ4 2:59 4th & 3 at NEB 47, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
6. vs LTQ3 2:57 4th & 3 at NEB 47, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
7. vs NUQ4 8:39 4th & 4 at NEB 46, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
8. at MSUQ3 11:35 4th & 6 at MSU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

102nd of 133 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

   MINN
2. L

   COLO
3. W

   NIU
4. W

   LT
5. L

   MICH
6. W

   ILL
7. W

   NU
8. W

   PUR
9. L

   MSU
10. L

    MD
11. L

    WIS
12. L

    IOWA

What moved it, 2023

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−0.64
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.18
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.01

Game by game

• MINNL 10-13 at MINN31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• COLOL 14-36 at COLO43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• NIUW 35-11 vs NIU77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• LTW 28-14 vs LT91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• MICHL 7-45 vs MICH10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• ILLW 20-7 at ILL42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• NUW 17-9 vs NU73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• PURW 31-14 vs PUR52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• MSUL 17-20 at MSU58% → 16%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −3
• MDL 10-13 vs MD40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• WISL 17-24 at WIS31% → 13%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts +20
• IOWAL 10-13 vs IOWA54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, 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.