:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47637565/GettyImages-496185742.0.jpg)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4249345/Screen_Shot_2015-11-09_at_8.31.11_PM.0.png)
Top 5 Plays
|
|
Play.Number |
Offense |
Down |
Distance |
Spot |
Quarter |
Play_Description |
Pred |
WPA |
|
1 |
193 |
Michigan State |
1 |
10 |
41 |
4 |
Connor Cook Pass to Josiah Price for 0 |
0.473 |
0.527 |
|
2 |
188 |
Nebraska |
2 |
10 |
30 |
4 |
Tommy Armstrong Jr. Pass to Brandon Reilly for 30, TOUCHDOWN |
0.368 |
0.268 |
|
3 |
118 |
Nebraska |
2 |
7 |
7 |
3 |
Tommy Armstrong Jr. Pass INTERCEPTED |
0.561 |
-0.179 |
|
4 |
174 |
Nebraska |
3 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
Tommy Armstrong Jr. Rush for 1, TOUCHDOWN |
0.098 |
0.158 |
|
5 |
92 |
Michigan State |
3 |
9 |
18 |
2 |
Connor Cook Pass to Macgarrett Kings Jr. for 18, TOUCHDOWN |
0.571 |
-0.152 |
Win probabilities get a little bit funky in the last minute of a super-tight game, so it probably isn't the case that State had a 53% chance of winning with the ball at the NU 41 with 7 seconds left. But it gives me a chance to point out that ... wow, did State blow at least a slight opportunity there. Michael Geiger's long field goal this year is 47, and obviously State wasn't quite in reliable field position yet, but you HAVE TO know the clock and throw the ball away and at least get one more play out of those last seven seconds.
Nebraska 39, Michigan State 38
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
| Basics | Michigan State | Nebraska | Nat'l Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Plays | 73 | 69 | |
| Close Rate (non-garbage time) | 100.0% | ||
| Avg Starting FP | 30.8 | 32.8 | 29.7 |
| Possessions | 12 | 12 | |
| Scoring Opportunities* |
7 | 9 | |
| Points Per Opportunity | 5.43 | 4.56 | 4.75 |
| Leverage Rate** | 71.2% | 73.9% | 68.1% |
| Close S&P*** | 0.642 | 0.687 | 0.586 |
|
* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40). ** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs) *** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP) |
|||
| EqPts (what's this?) | Michigan State | Nebraska | |
| Total | 46.6 | 48.5 | |
| Rushing | 11.9 | 16.9 | |
| Passing | 34.7 | 31.6 | |
| Success Rate (what's this?) | Michigan State | Nebraska | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 43.8% | 52.2% | 41.6% |
| Rushing (close) | 35.3% | 61.1% | 42.5% |
| Passing (close) | 51.3% | 42.4% | 40.7% |
| Standard Downs | 40.4% | 56.9% | 46.9% |
| Passing Downs | 52.4% | 38.9% | 30.5% |
| IsoPPP (what's this?) | Michigan State | Nebraska | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 1.46 | 1.35 | 1.27 |
| Rushing (close) | 0.99 | 0.77 | 1.07 |
| Passing (close) | 1.74 | 2.26 | 1.48 |
| Standard Downs | 1.24 | 1.16 | 1.11 |
| Passing Downs | 1.86 | 2.14 | 1.77 |
| Line Stats | Michigan State | Nebraska | Nat'l Avg |
| Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) | 2.26 | 3.18 | 2.87 |
| Std. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.9% |
| Pass. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 0.0% | 7.5% |
| Turnovers | Michigan State | Nebraska |
|---|---|---|
| Turnovers | 1 | 2 |
| Turnover Points (what's this?) | 2.8 | 9.6 |
| Turnover Margin | Michigan State +1 | |
| Exp. TO Margin | Nebraska +0.29 | |
| TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) | Michigan State +1.29 | |
| TO Points Margin | Michigan State +6.8 points | |
| Situational | Michigan State | Nebraska |
| Q1 S&P | 0.560 | 0.654 |
| Q2 S&P | 0.686 | 0.511 |
| Q3 S&P | 0.864 | 0.796 |
| Q4 S&P | 0.552 | 0.754 |
| 1st Down S&P | 0.626 | 0.768 |
| 2nd Down S&P | 0.560 | 0.740 |
| 3rd Down S&P | 0.665 | 0.659 |
| Projected Scoring Margin: Michigan State by 4.9 | ||
| Actual Scoring Margin: Nebraska by 1 | ||
After all that's happened this year -- NU suffering tons of gut-wrenching finishes, State beating Michigan the way it did -- perhaps this game was just the universe making an Apollo 13-esque course correction. I doubt NU fans are in the mood to apologize. But it's still never fun for a game to end in controversial fashion, as this one did with NU's TD. That, and State's late clock issues, created a results that turnovers had made unlikely. But NU still had a pretty incredible night from an efficiency standpoint and put itself at least in position to benefit from such a break. So there's that.
Loading comments...