Nebraska

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1046th
  Defense+0.1531st
• 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.
  Offense46.2%81st
  Defense43.2%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.091st
  Defense+1.2644th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0851st
  Defense+0.223rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1441st
  Defense+0.1262nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.1%76th
  Defense46.6%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%62nd
  Defense35.5%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1679th
  Defense3.2511th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%87th
  Defense15.7%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.8%83rd
  Defense14.4%26th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   CIN
2. W
   AKR
3. W
   HCU
4. L
   MICH
5. W
   MSU
6. W
   MD
7. L
   MINN
8. W
   NU
9. L
   USC
10. W
    UCLA
11. L
    PSU
12. L
    IOWA
13. L
    UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nebraska.

Players, 2025

1. Dylan RaiolaQB228 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 130th of 231 QBs
   0.52WAR0.06 to 0.94
2. Emmett JohnsonRB249 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 5th of 365 RBs
   0.48WAR0.32 to 0.64
3. TJ LateefQB88 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 153rd of 231 QBs
   0.31WAR0.18 to 0.45
4. Dane KeyWR46 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 82nd of 451 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.28
5. Nyziah HunterWR54 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 90th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.28
6. Kyle CunananPK17 plays · +0.287 pts/play · 48th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Luke LindenmeyerTE30 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 62nd of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Jacory Barney Jr.WR44 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 324th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.02 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  82182120th of 134Roster talent: 821, 20th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22722724th of 134Recruiting: 227, 24th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%45th of 132Returning production: 47%, 45th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.2+6.246th of 134SP+ rating: +6.2, 46th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.11 of the 0.17 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 USCQ3 5:23 4th & 1 at USC 34, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. at CINQ3 4:11 4th & 2 at NEB 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs MICHQ2 0:00 4th & 11 at NEB 48, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
4. vs NUQ3 8:43 4th & 1 at NEB 32, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at MDQ3 4:09 4th & 2 at NEB 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs NUQ4 13:29 4th & 2 at NEB 42, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs IOWAQ2 0:02 4th & 5 at NEB 33, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at CINQ2 1:54 4th & 12 at CIN 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

100th of 136 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

   CIN
2. W

   AKR
3. W

   HCU
4. L

   MICH
5. W

   MSU
6. W

   MD
7. L

   MINN
8. W

   NU
9. L

   USC
10. W

    UCLA
11. L

    PSU
12. L

    IOWA
13. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2025

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−0.66
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.41

Game by game

• CINW 20-17 at CIN68% → 93%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• AKRW 68-0 vs AKR98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• HCUW 59-7 vs HCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• MICHL 27-30 vs MICH50% → 6%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• MSUW 38-27 vs MSU83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• MDW 34-31 at MD73% → 95%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• MINNL 6-24 at MINN72% → 1%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts −1
• NUW 28-21 vs NU74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• USCL 17-21 vs USC40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• UCLAW 28-21 at UCLA52% → 95%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• PSUL 10-37 at PSU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• IOWAL 16-40 vs IOWA39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• UTAHL 22-44 at UTAH22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25

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.