Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1559th
  Defense+0.0956th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%71st
  Defense40.3%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.114th
  Defense+1.2940th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1675th
  Defense−0.0590th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1853rd
  Defense+0.2324th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.4%65th
  Defense44.7%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%64th
  Defense31.1%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1971st
  Defense2.7281st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.8%95th
  Defense21.0%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%54th
  Defense19.2%82nd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UTEP
2. W
   COLO
3. W
   UNI
4. L
   ILL
5. W
   PUR
6. W
   RUTG
7. L
   IU
8. L
   OSU
9. L
   UCLA
10. L
    USC
11. W
    WIS
12. L
    IOWA
13. W
    BC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2024

1. Dylan RaiolaQB342 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 50th of 232 QBs
   1.58WAR0.94 to 2.21
2. Emmett JohnsonRB114 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 113th of 373 RBs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.34
3. Dante DowdellRB109 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 118th of 373 RBs
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.31
4. Jahmal BanksWR42 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 122nd of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.18
5. Isaiah NeyorWR31 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 178th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
6. Thomas Fidone IITE28 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 112th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.04 to 0.08
7. Rahmir JohnsonRB9 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 313th of 373 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Brian BuschiniP37 plays · +0.017 pts/play · 88th of 106 punters
   0.01WAR−0.04 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  79079023rd of 131Roster talent: 790, 23rd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22222223rd of 131Recruiting: 222, 23rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%31st of 130Returning production: 63%, 31st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.5+5.544th of 131SP+ rating: +5.5, 44th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.09 of the 0.15 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 ILLQ4 2:59 4th & 3 at ILL 21, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. at IOWAQ4 3:31 4th & 8 at IOWA 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at IOWAQ3 0:49 4th & 2 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs RUTGQ4 14:47 4th & 8 at NEB 33, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
5. at USCQ3 4:50 4th & 2 at NEB 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs UCLAQ4 11:31 4th & 5 at UCLA 5, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs ILLQ1 3:15 4th & 3 at ILL 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at PURQ2 6:02 4th & 6 at PUR 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

101st of 134 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

   UTEP
2. W

   COLO
3. W

   UNI
4. L

   ILL
5. W

   PUR
6. W

   RUTG
7. L

   IU
8. L

   OSU
9. L

   UCLA
10. L

    USC
11. W

    WIS
12. L

    IOWA
13. W

    BC

What moved it, 2024

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−0.08
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.35

Game by game

• UTEPW 40-7 vs UTEP96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +5
• COLOW 28-10 vs COLO71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• UNIW 34-3 vs UNI98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• ILLL 24-31 vs ILL76% → 55%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −3, Possession & field position −2
• PURW 28-10 at PUR77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• RUTGW 14-7 vs RUTG70% → 90%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position +3
• IUL 7-56 at IU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −38
• OSUL 17-21 at OSU6% → 5%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• UCLAL 20-27 vs UCLA75% → 5%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• USCL 20-28 at USC36% → 10%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position +3
• WISW 44-25 vs WIS55% → 98%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −1
• IOWAL 10-13 at IOWA43% → 4%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −35
• BCW 20-15 vs BC62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +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.