Northern Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1353rd
  Defense+0.2015th
• 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.
  Offense40.7%38th
  Defense44.6%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2868th
  Defense+1.3031st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1672nd
  Defense+0.0562nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2664th
  Defense+0.464th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.0%35th
  Defense50.2%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.2%33rd
  Defense32.4%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1662nd
  Defense3.2918th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.1%92nd
  Defense13.0%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%42nd
  Defense14.6%27th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

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

Players, 2022

1. Harrison WayleeRB137 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 55th of 384 RBs
   0.41WAR0.29 to 0.55
2. Rocky LombardiQB57 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 160th of 234 QBs
   0.26WAR0.13 to 0.41
3. Cole TuckerWR52 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 40th of 455 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.33
4. Antario BrownRB73 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 181st of 384 RBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.28
5. Jaiden CredleRB71 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 185th of 384 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
6. Kacper RutkiewiczWR30 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 160th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
7. Ethan HamptonQB79 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 192nd of 234 QBs
   0.12WAR−0.10 to 0.37
8. John RichardsonPK16 plays · +0.298 pts/play · 28th of 110 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  410410109th of 129Roster talent: 410, 109th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214292nd of 129Recruiting: 142, 92nd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%16th of 128Returning production: 81%, 16th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.8−18.8121st of 129SP+ rating: −18.8, 121st of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 0:00 4th & 9 at NIU 49, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−3.7 pts
2. at WMUQ4 8:02 4th & 2 at NIU 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs M-OHQ3 4:08 4th & 10 at M-OH 31, down 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.9 pts
4. vs CMUQ4 4:17 4th & 7 at CMU 13, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
5. vs CMUQ4 4:17 4th & 7 at CMU 13, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
6. vs M-OHQ2 2:27 4th & 1 at NIU 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at BALLQ3 3:50 4th & 1 at NIU 21, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs M-OHQ2 7:26 4th & 1 at NIU 21, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

131st of 131 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

   EIU
2. L

   TLSA
3. L

   VAN
4. L

   UK
5. L

   BALL
6. L

   TOL
7. W

   EMU
8. L

   OHIO
9. L

   CMU
10. W

    WMU
11. L

    M-OH
12. L

    AKR

What moved it, 2022

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−2.46
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.56

Game by game

• EIUW 34-27 vs EIU98% → 90%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −8: Scoreboard +8
• TLSAL 35-38 at TLSA35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• VANL 28-38 vs VAN56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• UKL 23-31 at UK5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• BALLL 38-44 at BALL64% → 48%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −16: Scoreboard +10, Clock +3
• TOLL 32-52 vs TOL37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• EMUW 39-10 at EMU48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• OHIOL 17-24 at OHIO66% → 1%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
• CMUL 22-35 vs CMU64% → 2%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• WMUW 24-21 at WMU59% → 95%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• M-OHL 23-29 vs M-OH55% → 4%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• AKRL 12-44 vs AKR81% → 0%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −69, 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.