Northwestern

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0633rd
  Defense−0.0387th
• 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.
  Offense43.3%56th
  Defense38.8%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.065th
  Defense+1.2438th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0967th
  Defense−0.1699th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0424th
  Defense+0.0765th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.7%64th
  Defense43.0%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.0%36th
  Defense31.0%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9765th
  Defense2.3295th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%67th
  Defense23.5%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%67th
  Defense19.9%86th

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, 2017

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
   NEV
2. L
   DUKE
3. W
   BGSU
4. L
   WIS
5. L
   PSU
6. W
   MD
7. W
   IOWA
8. W
   MSU
9. W
   NEB
10. W
    PUR
11. W
    MINN
12. W
    ILL
13. W
    UK

Bars above the line: better than expected for Northwestern.

Players, 2017

1. Clayton ThorsonQB472 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 30th of 226 QBs
   1.66WAR0.88 to 2.44
2. Justin JacksonRB322 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 14th of 352 RBs
   0.67WAR0.40 to 0.90
3. Jeremy LarkinRB78 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 164th of 352 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
4. Bennett SkowronekWR72 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 90th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.22
5. Macan WilsonWR53 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 116th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Garrett Dickerson?46 plays · +0.127 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Charlie KuhbanderPK14 plays · +0.382 pts/play · 59th of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
8. Flynn NagelWR60 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 215th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 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

What it had and what it did, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62862841st of 130Roster talent: 628, 41st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917950th of 130Recruiting: 179, 50th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%59th of 128Returning production: 64%, 59th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.2+11.227th of 128SP+ rating: +11.2, 27th of 128 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.15 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 MSUQ3 4:34 4th & 1 at NU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs PURQ3 9:10 4th & 2 at PUR 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at NEBQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at NEB 27, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs MSUQ3 12:57 4th & 10 at MSU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
5. vs PURQ4 3:50 4th & 3 at PUR 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs MINNQ3 8:13 4th & 1 at NU 29, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at WISQ2 10:54 4th & 1 at WIS 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs MSUQ4 3:14 4th & 4 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

9th of 130 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

   NEV
2. L

   DUKE
3. W

   BGSU
4. L

   WIS
5. L

   PSU
6. W

   MD
7. W

   IOWA
8. W

   MSU
9. W

   NEB
10. W

    PUR
11. W

    MINN
12. W

    ILL
13. W

    UK

What moved it, 2017

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+1.92
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.21

Game by game

• NEVW 31-20 vs NEV95% → 98%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +10
• DUKEL 17-41 at DUKE52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −1
• BGSUW 49-7 vs BGSU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• WISL 24-33 at WIS14% → 4%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• PSUL 7-31 vs PSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• MDW 37-21 at MD58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• IOWAW 17-10 vs IOWA62% → 89%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −16
• MSUW 39-31 vs MSU48% → 89%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −19
• NEBW 31-24 at NEB51% → 83%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +18
• PURW 23-13 vs PUR68% → 96%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• MINNW 39-0 vs MINN72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29
• ILLW 42-7 at ILL86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• UKW 24-23 vs UK70% → 94%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2

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.