Northwestern

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.141st
  Defense+0.1047th
• 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.
  Offense37.3%12th
  Defense45.1%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.031st
  Defense+1.0398th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.141st
  Defense+0.0847th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.069th
  Defense+0.1859th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%27th
  Defense51.6%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.4%3rd
  Defense29.0%63rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.654th
  Defense3.1635th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%33rd
  Defense15.9%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%26th
  Defense12.5%8th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   NEB
2. L
   DUKE
3. L
   SIU
4. L
   M-OH
5. L
   PSU
6. L
   WIS
7. L
   MD
8. L
   IOWA
9. L
   OSU
10. L
    MINN
11. L
    PUR
12. L
    ILL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Northwestern.

Players, 2022

1. Evan HullRB196 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 24th of 384 RBs
   0.56WAR0.38 to 0.77
2. Brendan SullivanQB99 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 147th of 234 QBs
   0.33WAR0.15 to 0.54
3. Ryan HilinskiQB174 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 165th of 234 QBs
   0.25WAR−0.12 to 0.67
4. Malik WashingtonWR62 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 62nd of 455 WRs
   0.20WAR0.09 to 0.30
5. Cam PorterRB63 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 275th of 384 RBs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
6. Donny Navarro IIIWR33 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 344th of 455 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.10
7. Andrew ClairRB16 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 299th of 384 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
8. Marshall LangTE12 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 112th of 214 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65365346th of 129Roster talent: 653, 46th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918951st of 129Recruiting: 189, 51st of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%67th of 128Returning production: 57%, 67th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.4−13.4108th of 129SP+ rating: −13.4, 108th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.07 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 NEBQ4 2:12 4th & 7 at NEB 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs OSUQ4 6:27 4th & 3 at NU 18, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs M-OHQ2 5:32 4th & 5 at M-OH 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at PSUQ4 9:43 4th & 5 at NU 35, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at PURQ2 0:12 4th & 11 at PUR 44, down 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs OSUQ2 7:38 4th & 2 at OSU 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at MDQ2 10:25 4th & 4 at MD 7, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs WISQ2 9:43 4th & 3 at NU 27, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

129th of 131 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

   NEB
2. L

   DUKE
3. L

   SIU
4. L

   M-OH
5. L

   PSU
6. L

   WIS
7. L

   MD
8. L

   IOWA
9. L

   OSU
10. L

    MINN
11. L

    PUR
12. L

    ILL

What moved it, 2022

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−2.01
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• NEBW 31-28 vs NEB21% → 95%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• DUKEL 23-31 vs DUKE75% → 0%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −67, Possession & field position −1
• SIUL 24-31 vs SIU86% → 79%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position +1
• M-OHL 14-17 vs M-OH71% → 16%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• PSUL 7-17 at PSU5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• WISL 7-42 vs WIS24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −30
• MDL 24-31 at MD16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• IOWAL 13-33 at IOWA19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position +1
• OSUL 7-21 vs OSU1% → 1%Before kickoff −49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −5
• MINNL 3-31 at MINN12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• PURL 9-17 at PUR12% → 4%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position −1
• ILLL 3-41 vs ILL17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1

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.