Northwestern

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.027th
  Defense+0.2615th
• 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.
  Offense38.3%13th
  Defense46.6%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1919th
  Defense+1.2073rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0836th
  Defense+0.334th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.028th
  Defense+0.1958th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%19th
  Defense51.6%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.5%3rd
  Defense34.7%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8320th
  Defense3.508th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.5%71st
  Defense12.7%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.7%10th
  Defense11.9%2nd

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, 2021

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
   MSU
2. W
   INST
3. L
   DUKE
4. W
   OHIO
5. L
   NEB
6. W
   RUTG
7. L
   MICH
8. L
   MINN
9. L
   IOWA
10. L
    WIS
11. L
    PUR
12. L
    ILL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Northwestern.

Players, 2021

1. Evan HullRB151 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 63rd of 387 RBs
   0.52WAR0.37 to 0.65
2. Ryan HilinskiQB129 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 145th of 219 QBs
   0.41WAR0.19 to 0.67
3. Andrew MartyQB125 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 147th of 219 QBs
   0.39WAR0.16 to 0.60
4. Hunter JohnsonQB62 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 181st of 219 QBs
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.30
5. Andrew ClairRB52 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 242nd of 387 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
6. Stephon Robinson Jr.WR46 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 165th of 474 WRs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
7. Malik WashingtonWR35 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 177th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
8. Derek AdamsP43 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 58th of 101 punters
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.20

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64964944th of 130Roster talent: 649, 44th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18618653rd of 130Recruiting: 186, 53rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%127th of 128Returning production: 14%, 127th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.1−11.1106th of 130SP+ rating: −11.1, 106th of 130 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, 2021

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.06 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 INSTQ3 6:33 4th & 23 at INST 31, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
2. at DUKEQ3 0:11 4th & 11 at DUKE 35, down 13Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs PURQ4 5:08 4th & 26 at NU 41, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs RUTGQ2 11:32 4th & 7 at RUTG 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs MINNQ4 12:59 4th & 8 at NU 43, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs PURQ2 3:47 4th & 10 at PUR 30, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs MSUQ4 12:44 4th & 5 at MSU 15, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs IOWAQ4 12:49 4th & 2 at NU 26, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

103rd 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. L

   MSU
2. W

   INST
3. L

   DUKE
4. W

   OHIO
5. L

   NEB
6. W

   RUTG
7. L

   MICH
8. L

   MINN
9. L

   IOWA
10. L

    WIS
11. L

    PUR
12. L

    ILL

What moved it, 2021

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−1.60
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.63

Game by game

• MSUL 21-38 vs MSU53% → 2%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −54, Clock −1
• INSTW 24-6 vs INST96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• DUKEL 23-30 at DUKE50% → 1%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −46, Possession & field position +1
• OHIOW 35-6 vs OHIO77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25
• NEBL 7-56 at NEB18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20
• RUTGW 21-7 vs RUTG35% → 99%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +1
• MICHL 7-33 at MICH5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• MINNL 14-41 vs MINN24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −29
• IOWAL 12-17 vs IOWA17% → 20%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +4: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position −1
• WISL 7-35 at WIS4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• PURL 14-32 vs PUR18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• ILLL 14-47 at ILL26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28

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.