Northern Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0318th
  Defense+0.1436th
• 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.
  Offense38.9%15th
  Defense42.8%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2256th
  Defense+1.2435th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0412th
  Defense+0.0747th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1230th
  Defense+0.2427th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%17th
  Defense48.4%42nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.6%12th
  Defense31.0%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5411th
  Defense2.6775th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%22nd
  Defense25.1%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense26.6%2nd
  Defense19.1%37th

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, 2019

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. W
   ILST
2. L
   UTAH
3. L
   NEB
4. L
   VAN
5. L
   BALL
6. W
   OHIO
7. L
   M-OH
8. W
   AKR
9. L
   CMU
10. W
    TOL
11. L
    EMU
12. W
    WMU

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

Players, 2019

1. Tre HarbisonRB177 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 16th of 349 RBs
   0.79WAR0.65 to 0.94
2. Ross BowersQB241 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 109th of 228 QBs
   0.63WAR0.23 to 1.02
3. Marcus ChildersQB111 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 140th of 228 QBs
   0.41WAR0.24 to 0.62
4. Cole TuckerWR43 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 153rd of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Jordan NettlesRB54 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 250th of 349 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
6. John RichardsonPK14 plays · +0.447 pts/play · 59th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Tyrice RichieWR38 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 258th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Mitchell BrinkmanTE38 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 18th of 207 TEs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.13

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  398398105th of 130Roster talent: 398, 105th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127102nd of 130Recruiting: 127, 102nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%66th of 130Returning production: 59%, 66th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.9−13.9115th of 130SP+ rating: −13.9, 115th 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.20 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 TOLQ4 0:41 4th & 1 at TOL 7, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−10.7 pts
2. at TOLQ4 13:10 4th & 9 at NIU 26, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
3. at M-OHQ2 13:36 4th & 1 at NIU 29, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs ILSTQ4 2:50 4th & 3 at ILST 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at TOLQ4 12:23 4th & 8 at TOL 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at VANQ3 12:51 4th & 2 at VAN 21, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at NEBQ2 0:53 4th & 1 at NIU 44, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at OHIOQ2 0:13 4th & 6 at OHIO 41, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

91st 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. W

   ILST
2. L

   UTAH
3. L

   NEB
4. L

   VAN
5. L

   BALL
6. W

   OHIO
7. L

   M-OH
8. W

   AKR
9. L

   CMU
10. W

    TOL
11. L

    EMU
12. W

    WMU

What moved it, 2019

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−1.01
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.08

Game by game

• ILSTW 24-10 vs ILST71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• UTAHL 17-35 at UTAH7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• NEBL 8-44 at NEB15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• VANL 18-24 at VAN32% → 5%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• BALLL 20-27 vs BALL62% → 9%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• OHIOW 39-36 at OHIO40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• M-OHL 24-27 at M-OH62% → 7%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• AKRW 49-0 vs AKR91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• CMUL 10-48 at CMU58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −52, Possession & field position −1
• TOLW 31-28 at TOL44% → 66%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −5
• EMUL 17-45 vs EMU61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• WMUW 17-14 vs WMU25% → 86%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +3

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.