Northwestern

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0412th
  Defense+0.1075th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%26th
  Defense40.7%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0811th
  Defense+1.1957th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0211th
  Defense+0.0472nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1020th
  Defense+0.1856th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.8%20th
  Defense44.7%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.7%41st
  Defense32.8%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6325th
  Defense2.7169th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%56th
  Defense18.6%37th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%45th
  Defense2.0%53rd

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, 2014

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 Northwestern 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
   CAL
2. L
   NIU
3. W
   WIU
4. W
   PSU
5. W
   WIS
6. L
   MINN
7. L
   NEB
8. L
   IOWA
9. L
   MICH
10. W
    ND
11. W
    PUR
12. L
    ILL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Northwestern.

Players, 2014

1. Trevor SiemianQB408 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 76th of 199 QBs
   1.35WAR0.65 to 1.99
2. Justin JacksonRB220 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 12th of 350 RBs
   0.58WAR0.42 to 0.73
3. Kyle PraterWR63 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 79th of 469 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.26
4. Treyvon GreenRB73 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 149th of 350 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
5. Tony JonesWR60 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 133rd of 469 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.22
6. Jack MitchellPK16 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 84th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
7. Cameron DickersonWR36 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 273rd of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Dan Vitale?52 plays · +0.076 pts/play
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.15

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 Northwestern'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Northwestern's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 of the 0.27 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 MICHQ4 7:26 4th & 4 at MICH 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at MINNQ2 0:04 4th & 2 at MINN 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs NEBQ3 9:19 4th & 1 at NU 15, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at MINNQ4 7:19 4th & 3 at NU 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at PSUQ4 13:06 4th & 2 at PSU 7, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. vs NIUQ4 8:19 4th & 6 at NIU 29, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
7. at MINNQ3 5:04 4th & 1 at NU 35, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. vs MICHQ3 12:15 4th & 2 at MICH 19, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

93rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   CAL
2. L

   NIU
3. W

   WIU
4. W

   PSU
5. W

   WIS
6. L

   MINN
7. L

   NEB
8. L

   IOWA
9. L

   MICH
10. W

    ND
11. W

    PUR
12. L

    ILL

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Northwestern'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−1.02
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock−0.28
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• CALL 24-31 vs CAL72% → 5%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• NIUL 15-23 vs NIU58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• WIUW 24-7 vs WIU95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +10
• PSUW 29-6 at PSU26% → 99%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +64, Clock +3
• WISW 20-14 vs WIS27% → 97%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +46, Possession & field position +1
• MINNL 17-24 at MINN42% → 9%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• NEBL 17-38 vs NEB33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• IOWAL 7-48 at IOWA34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34
• MICHL 9-10 vs MICH53% → 24%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position −5
• NDW 43-40 at ND13% → 71%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +35, Clock −20
• PURW 38-14 at PUR56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• ILLL 33-47 vs ILL77% → 2%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Northwestern's side.

Closest call

MINN 34-37 NU (2023) - Northwestern dropped to a 3.2% win probability before pulling it out.