Northwestern

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.0113th
  Defense−0.0798th
• 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.
  Offense36.0%8th
  Defense36.8%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1531st
  Defense+1.1180th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0127th
  Defense−0.0281st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0212th
  Defense−0.1299th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.7%4th
  Defense43.5%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.1%22nd
  Defense25.1%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7024th
  Defense2.6672nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%28th
  Defense20.9%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%65th
  Defense1.3%6th

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, 2015

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. W
   STAN
2. W
   EIU
3. W
   DUKE
4. W
   BALL
5. W
   MINN
6. L
   MICH
7. L
   IOWA
8. W
   NEB
9. W
   PSU
10. W
    PUR
11. W
    WIS
12. W
    ILL
13. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Northwestern.

Players, 2015

1. Clayton ThorsonQB349 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 73rd of 205 QBs
   1.30WAR0.75 to 1.87
2. Justin JacksonRB298 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 3rd of 333 RBs
   0.80WAR0.57 to 1.01
3. Jack MitchellPK25 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 49th of 115 kickers
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.20
4. Hunter NiswanderP69 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 30th of 92 punters
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.24
5. Christian JonesWR40 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 182nd of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Warren LongLB43 plays · +0.136 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Dan Vitale?50 plays · +0.076 pts/play
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.15
8. Miles ShulerWR26 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 335th of 411 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59659648th of 128Roster talent: 596, 48th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917949th of 128Recruiting: 179, 49th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%103rd of 127Returning production: 41%, 103rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.2+0.275th of 128SP+ rating: +0.2, 75th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.26 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. vs PSUQ4 3:19 4th & 17 at PSU 38, down 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−7.9 pts
2. at NEBQ3 5:18 4th & 1 at NEB 1, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
3. vs STANQ4 12:21 4th & 2 at STAN 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
4. at WISQ4 10:39 4th & 7 at WIS 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
5. vs STANQ3 4:28 4th & 1 at NU 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
6. at WISQ4 14:50 4th & 3 at WIS 23, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs BALLQ3 4:51 4th & 1 at BALL 4, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs IOWAQ2 2:40 4th & 3 at IOWA 3, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

1st 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. W

   STAN
2. W

   EIU
3. W

   DUKE
4. W

   BALL
5. W

   MINN
6. L

   MICH
7. L

   IOWA
8. W

   NEB
9. W

   PSU
10. W

    PUR
11. W

    WIS
12. W

    ILL
13. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2015

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+2.59
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts+0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.31

Game by game

• STANW 16-6 vs STAN21% → 97%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +2
• EIUW 41-0 vs EIU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• DUKEW 19-10 at DUKE42% → 96%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• BALLW 24-19 vs BALL89% → 92%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +2
• MINNW 27-0 vs MINN67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +1
• MICHL 0-38 at MICH23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −25
• IOWAL 10-40 vs IOWA46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• NEBW 30-28 at NEB30% → 94%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• PSUW 23-21 vs PSU48% → 86%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +2
• PURW 21-14 vs PUR81% → 95%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• WISW 13-7 at WIS22% → 94%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +55, Clock +4
• ILLW 24-14 at ILL55% → 97%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• TENNL 6-45 at TENN20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −22

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.