Northwestern

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0322nd
  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.
  Offense39.6%26th
  Defense38.2%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1921st
  Defense+1.1976th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.105th
  Defense+0.0555th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2056th
  Defense−0.1699th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.1%13th
  Defense43.6%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.8%62nd
  Defense27.6%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.438th
  Defense2.9644th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.3%21st
  Defense23.7%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%60th
  Defense19.5%90th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   MD
2. W
   IOWA
3. W
   NEB
4. W
   PUR
5. W
   WIS
6. L
   MSU
7. W
   ILL
8. L
   OSU
9. W
   AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Northwestern.

Players, 2020

1. Peyton RamseyQB331 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 18th of 212 QBs
   1.11WAR0.55 to 1.58
2. Cam PorterRB79 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 114th of 338 RBs
   0.28WAR0.22 to 0.33
3. Ramaud Chiaokhiao-BowmanWR59 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 24th of 409 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
4. Isaiah BowserRB73 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 184th of 338 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
5. Drake AndersonRB59 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 192nd of 338 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
6. Kyric McGowanWR66 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 52nd of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
7. Derek AdamsP40 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 7th of 77 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
8. Riley LeesWR37 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 308th of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63063046th of 127Roster talent: 630, 46th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18518550th of 127Recruiting: 185, 50th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%16th of 127Returning production: 84%, 16th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.0+9.032nd of 127SP+ rating: +9.0, 32nd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.08 of the 0.13 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 IOWAQ3 0:11 4th & 2 at IOWA 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at MSUQ2 11:02 4th & 3 at MSU 24, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at IOWAQ4 4:45 4th & 4 at NU 45, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs WISQ4 4:58 4th & 1 at NU 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at OSUQ2 2:26 4th & 4 at NU 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs NEBQ3 1:56 4th & 3 at NU 27, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs AUBQ2 4:02 4th & 2 at NU 46, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at MSUQ4 2:57 4th & 10 at NU 22, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

12th of 127 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

   MD
2. W

   IOWA
3. W

   NEB
4. W

   PUR
5. W

   WIS
6. L

   MSU
7. W

   ILL
8. L

   OSU
9. W

   AUB

What moved it, 2020

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+1.85
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.48

Game by game

• MDW 43-3 vs MD82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• IOWAW 21-20 at IOWA57% → 84%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +35, Clock +4
• NEBW 21-13 vs NEB63% → 93%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• PURW 27-20 at PUR58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• WISW 17-7 vs WIS31% → 96%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• MSUL 20-29 at MSU85% → 10%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position −3
• ILLW 28-10 vs ILL84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts −1
• OSUL 10-22 at OSU13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19
• AUBW 35-19 vs AUB60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +36, 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.