Northern Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1460th
  Defense+0.1628th
• 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.
  Offense44.5%60th
  Defense44.6%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1739th
  Defense+1.2529th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1573rd
  Defense+0.1718th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1337th
  Defense+0.1746th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%59th
  Defense50.4%26th
• 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%45th
  Defense32.7%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1978th
  Defense3.0144th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%67th
  Defense18.8%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.8%67th
  Defense17.2%65th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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 Northern Illinois 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
   WYO
2. L
   USF
3. L
   SDSU
4. L
   WIU
5. W
   BALL
6. L
   WMU
7. L
   CMU
8. W
   BUF
9. W
   BGSU
10. L
    TOL
11. W
    EMU
12. W
    KENT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Northern Illinois.

Players, 2016

1. Anthony MaddieQB165 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 97th of 218 QBs
   0.84WAR0.54 to 1.10
2. Jordan Huff?78 plays · +0.267 pts/play
   0.39WAR0.29 to 0.50
3. Joel Bouagnon?112 plays · +0.185 pts/play
   0.39WAR0.26 to 0.51
4. Ryan GrahamQB113 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 144th of 218 QBs
   0.33WAR0.15 to 0.50
5. Kenny GolladayWR111 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 37th of 417 WRs
   0.27WAR0.11 to 0.43
6. Drew HareQB60 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 164th of 218 QBs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.29
7. Daniel SantacaterinaQB44 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 165th of 218 QBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
8. Christian BlakeWR42 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 199th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16

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 Northern Illinois'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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40340394th of 128Roster talent: 403, 94th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12012097th of 128Recruiting: 120, 97th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%25th of 128Returning production: 86%, 25th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.4−2.477th of 128SP+ rating: −2.4, 77th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 Northern Illinois'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. at BALLQ4 7:51 4th & 1 at NIU 13, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at EMUQ4 6:46 4th & 4 at EMU 29, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at KENTQ3 1:03 4th & 2 at KENT 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at WMUQ3 10:26 4th & 2 at WMU 2, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs TOLQ2 4:27 4th & 2 at TOL 47, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs TOLQ4 10:48 4th & 6 at TOL 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs SDSUQ2 9:28 4th & 1 at NIU 11, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at EMUQ2 9:14 4th & 4 at EMU 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

104th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Northern Illinois's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   WYO
2. L

   USF
3. L

   SDSU
4. L

   WIU
5. W

   BALL
6. L

   WMU
7. L

   CMU
8. W

   BUF
9. W

   BGSU
10. L

    TOL
11. W

    EMU
12. W

    KENT

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Northern Illinois'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−0.58
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.32

Game by game

• WYOL 34-40 at WYO76% → 15%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts +25
• USFL 17-48 at USF19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −21
• SDSUL 28-42 vs SDSU30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• WIUL 23-28 vs WIU74% → 6%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• BALLW 31-24 at BALL44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• WMUL 30-45 at WMU10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• CMUL 28-34 vs CMU38% → 59%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +21: Timeouts −25, Clock +15
• BUFW 44-7 vs BUF92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• BGSUW 45-20 vs BGSU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• TOLL 24-31 vs TOL32% → 5%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• EMUW 31-24 at EMU63% → 76%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +18
• KENTW 31-21 at KENT65% → 90%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position −2

Points of win probability, from Northern Illinois's side.

Closest call

NIU 55-14 AKR (2023) - Northern Illinois dropped to a 4.2% win probability before pulling it out.