Northern Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0115th
  Defense−0.0595th
• 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.
  Offense40.4%25th
  Defense34.7%96th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1120th
  Defense+1.1661st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0340th
  Defense−0.0685th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0219th
  Defense−0.0291st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%41st
  Defense39.7%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.1%10th
  Defense26.0%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8849th
  Defense2.2098th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%53rd
  Defense26.9%97th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%71st
  Defense19.7%84th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   BC
2. W
   EIU
3. W
   NEB
4. L
   SDSU
5. W
   KENT
6. W
   BUF
7. W
   BGSU
8. W
   EMU
9. L
   TOL
10. W
    BALL
11. W
    WMU
12. L
    CMU
13. L
    DUKE

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

Players, 2017

1. Marcus ChildersQB337 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 64th of 226 QBs
   1.16WAR0.58 to 1.76
2. Jordan Huff?103 plays · +0.187 pts/play
   0.36WAR0.27 to 0.46
3. Daniel SantacaterinaQB75 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 171st of 226 QBs
   0.24WAR0.10 to 0.37
4. Ryan GrahamQB52 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 184th of 226 QBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.25
5. Marcus JonesRB70 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 216th of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
6. Christian BlakeWR75 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 153rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
7. Matt FerenceP71 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 15th of 95 punters
   0.11WAR−0.01 to 0.22
8. D.J. BrownWR67 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 179th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  37437493rd of 130Roster talent: 374, 93rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12112194th of 130Recruiting: 121, 94th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%93rd of 128Returning production: 45%, 93rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.4−1.475th of 128SP+ rating: −1.4, 75th of 128 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, 2017

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.27 of the 0.35 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 BUFQ4 4:18 4th & 1 at BUF 27, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.3 pts
2. at CMUQ2 12:53 4th & 24 at CMU 26, up 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.6 pts
3. at NEBQ4 3:59 4th & 5 at NEB 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
4. at BUFQ3 3:44 4th & 5 at BUF 35, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
5. vs DUKEQ3 10:50 4th & 14 at DUKE 22, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
6. at SDSUQ4 7:29 4th & 9 at SDSU 43, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
7. vs BCQ4 14:18 4th & 3 at BC 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. at TOLQ2 12:17 4th & 1 at TOL 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

50th of 130 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

   BC
2. W

   EIU
3. W

   NEB
4. L

   SDSU
5. W

   KENT
6. W

   BUF
7. W

   BGSU
8. W

   EMU
9. L

   TOL
10. W

    BALL
11. W

    WMU
12. L

    CMU
13. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2017

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+0.28
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.14

Game by game

• BCL 20-23 vs BC38% → 6%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• EIUW 38-10 vs EIU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +17
• NEBW 21-17 at NEB24% → 92%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• SDSUL 28-34 at SDSU23% → 5%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• KENTW 24-3 vs KENT92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• BUFW 14-13 at BUF71% → 80%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +27, Clock +4
• BGSUW 48-17 at BGSU81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25
• EMUW 30-27 vs EMU67% → 86%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −20
• TOLL 17-27 at TOL27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• BALLW 63-17 vs BALL95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• WMUW 35-31 vs WMU74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• CMUL 24-31 at CMU56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• DUKEL 14-36 vs DUKE31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35, Clock −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.