Northern Illinois

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−0.047th
  Defense+0.1435th
• 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.
  Offense34.5%3rd
  Defense44.1%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2455th
  Defense+1.1878th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0747th
  Defense+0.1519th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.151st
  Defense+0.1555th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.4%4th
  Defense47.4%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.0%3rd
  Defense35.8%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8439th
  Defense3.1814th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.1%56th
  Defense15.3%13th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%79th
  Defense11.2%3rd

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 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
   HC
2. L
   MD
3. L
   MSST
4. L
   SDSU
5. L
   M-OH
6. L
   EMU
7. L
   OHIO
8. W
   BALL
9. L
   TOL
10. W
    MASS
11. L
    WMU
12. L
    KENT

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

Players, 2025

1. Chavon WrightRB175 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 28th of 365 RBs
   0.35WAR0.27 to 0.45
2. Josh HolstQB120 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 152nd of 231 QBs
   0.31WAR0.11 to 0.53
3. Jalen MaconQB63 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 162nd of 231 QBs
   0.25WAR0.04 to 0.42
4. Telly Johnson Jr.RB106 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 125th of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
5. Brady DavidsonQB63 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 191st of 231 QBs
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.24
6. DeAree RogersWR42 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 167th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.19
7. Jaylen PoeRB4 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 352nd of 365 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
8. Justin LynchWR3 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 430th of 451 WRs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  471471125th of 134Roster talent: 471, 125th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714787th of 134Recruiting: 147, 87th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  18%18%101st of 132Returning production: 18%, 101st of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.7−16.7126th of 134SP+ rating: −16.7, 126th 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 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 0.04 of the 0.09 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 KENTQ4 7:03 4th & 3 at NIU 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at MDQ2 0:03 4th & 3 at MD 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs SDSUQ4 12:39 4th & 3 at NIU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at OHIOQ4 2:52 4th & 7 at OHIO 13, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs SDSUQ3 2:46 4th & 3 at NIU 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at EMUQ2 5:21 4th & 3 at EMU 22, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs WMUQ4 7:58 4th & 8 at NIU 27, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at MDQ2 11:37 4th & 10 at NIU 45, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

124th of 136 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

   HC
2. L

   MD
3. L

   MSST
4. L

   SDSU
5. L

   M-OH
6. L

   EMU
7. L

   OHIO
8. W

   BALL
9. L

   TOL
10. W

    MASS
11. L

    WMU
12. L

    KENT

What moved it, 2025

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−2.21
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.10

Game by game

• HCW 19-17 vs HC87% → 93%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• MDL 9-20 at MD13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19
• MSSTL 10-38 at MSST5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• SDSUL 3-6 vs SDSU47% → 4%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• M-OHL 14-25 vs M-OH40% → 2%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• EMUL 10-16 at EMU54% → 3%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• OHIOL 21-48 at OHIO22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −24
• BALLW 21-7 vs BALL72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• TOLL 3-42 at TOL12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• MASSW 45-3 at MASS78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• WMUL 19-35 vs WMU33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −38, Clock −4
• KENTL 31-35 vs KENT65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −57, Clock −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.