Cincinnati: What Did We Learn?
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
SuperBigFan69
Head Coach
When mathletes get into football!
Crusader Husker
All-Conference
To go with the math theme, guessing teach doesn't educate students in that area? 
We do really need to improve our yards per rush and yards per pass play.
We do really need to improve our yards per rush and yards per pass play.
The_Fan_Man
Four-Star Recruit
Net Success Rate is a pretty simple; do they get 50% of the yards to a first down on 1st (generally 5 yards), 70% of the yards on 2nd down, and 100% of the yards to gain for 3rd and 4th down. It does not punish turnovers and does not reward big plays or touchdowns. It's really a measure of what percent of plays are you "on schedule." There might be a small bit about EPA (estimated points added per play) that the play must also be greater than 0 (increases expectation of win per play) on Parker Fleming's model but that is just a small change to the overall number.
So, for example, throwing 10 straight plays of 6 yards to get a touchdown and a single 60 yard touchdown would both give you a value of 1.0. But then on the next drive if you go three and out with no yards gained then punt. The longer drive would give you a value of 0.77 while the one big play gives you 0.25. Even if you went 9 straight plays of 6 yards and then had a turnover, the overall Net Success Rate would be higher with the 13 plays (0.69) than the 4 plays (0.25).
The model is generally successful in reflecting how the game went but you look at USF's 34-7 victory over Boise State as the least impressive win on a per play basis and you can see where this model has its flaws. USF had a bunch of nothing drives and then big touchdown plays where Boise State had consistent drives that ended in eight drives ending in USF territory (4 on downs, 3 on fumbles, and 1 to end the game).
So, for example, throwing 10 straight plays of 6 yards to get a touchdown and a single 60 yard touchdown would both give you a value of 1.0. But then on the next drive if you go three and out with no yards gained then punt. The longer drive would give you a value of 0.77 while the one big play gives you 0.25. Even if you went 9 straight plays of 6 yards and then had a turnover, the overall Net Success Rate would be higher with the 13 plays (0.69) than the 4 plays (0.25).
The model is generally successful in reflecting how the game went but you look at USF's 34-7 victory over Boise State as the least impressive win on a per play basis and you can see where this model has its flaws. USF had a bunch of nothing drives and then big touchdown plays where Boise State had consistent drives that ended in eight drives ending in USF territory (4 on downs, 3 on fumbles, and 1 to end the game).
BIG ERN
All-American
I was pretty disappointed in our LBs overall. Watson-Trent just didn't look to have much, Wright in run fits was hit or miss. Shavers for the most part played pretty well. RVP and Jeudy weren't effective on the DL, especially Jeudy. George wasn't getting any push. Davis and Lenhardt made some good plays. WN made a few alright moves. Overall the pressure from our defense was awful. Butler will need to figure something out there and we are small for a 3 man front which we knew coming into the season. Will need to have more 4 man fronts imo. Pass defense looked fine but were rarely tested.
I felt like Turner was clearly #3 at LT. Teddy was pretty solid at RT and was good to see him back. Pass blocking was pretty solid the whole game. I thought Raiola and EJ played fine. Hunter and Key are positives and def more along than the two transfer WRs from last year.
Game 1s are always goofy, especially for the offense, so I still feel pretty good about the offense. It is evident as of now that losing Dowdell was big, and also missing out on Brown from NDSU. Hopefully M. Nelson can show something going fwd.
But hey, we lose those games all the time so it was nice to see a W.
I felt like Turner was clearly #3 at LT. Teddy was pretty solid at RT and was good to see him back. Pass blocking was pretty solid the whole game. I thought Raiola and EJ played fine. Hunter and Key are positives and def more along than the two transfer WRs from last year.
Game 1s are always goofy, especially for the offense, so I still feel pretty good about the offense. It is evident as of now that losing Dowdell was big, and also missing out on Brown from NDSU. Hopefully M. Nelson can show something going fwd.
But hey, we lose those games all the time so it was nice to see a W.
Red Five
Heisman Trophy Winner
Toe
All-American
Black 41 Flash Reverse posted his analysis of the game. Most of it is paywalled, though.
black41flashreverse.substack.com
Here's a clip of Jeudy attempting to stunt but getting rocked by the O-lineman when he's barely out of his stance.
2025 CINCINNATI RECAP: Aesthetics vs. Reality
An uneasy game obfuscates some quantifiable improvements for the Huskers and highlights some definite areas of concern
black41flashreverse.substack.com
Here's a clip of Jeudy attempting to stunt but getting rocked by the O-lineman when he's barely out of his stance.
Last edited:
Red Five
Heisman Trophy Winner
Ran across this somehow. And it is worth the read. It does cut off after a bit because it is paywalled, but $5/month seems like a good price if he puts together breakdowns like this each week.
black41flashreverse.substack.com
Nebraska’s offense was instead asked to be efficient, and it largely was. Using success rate, the metric I think best captures down-to-down efficiency, NU was successful on 50.7% of its overall offensive plays on Thursday, and its pure isolated passing offense had a 52.6% success rate. That 50.7% overall success rate is 6 percentage points higher than NU’s season average for 2024 and is better than all of NU’s major-conference games last season outside of the win against Wisconsin. The 52.6% passing success rate was over 12 percentage points higher than NU’s season average for 2024 and better than it was for NU last season in any major-conference game. In short, Nebraska’s overall offense and passing attack were put in a situation Thursday where they had to be efficient to move the ball and responded to that with better efficiency than they showed at any point against a real team last season. That should be a cause for optimism about improvement on the unit, and instead the narrative seems to be about the low yards per attempt stat that congealed right after the game.
What should be actually concerning about Nebraska’s performance against that defensive structure is not a low passing yards per attempt but, instead, the lack of success of the running game.
Dropping eight into coverage with a three-player rush on almost two-thirds of your plays and playing a light box on 77.1% of your snaps should get you obliterated on the ground. NU instead had a merely fine rushing day: Emmett Johnson got over 100 yards, but that was off a heavy workload, and a lot of the underlying data was more problematic. NU had just a 40.9% success rate on true runs, which would be 9 percentage points worse than its season average in 2024 and its worst individual game performance outside of the Rutgers and Ohio State games. That was largely because it had just a 36.8% success rate on runs specifically into light boxes. The relative failure to run into the light boxes should be way more concerning than a Y/PA number. Even without deploying any resources to its front to stop the run, Cincy’s light box was largely able to stymie NU’s pure running game.
2025 CINCINNATI RECAP: Aesthetics vs. Reality
An uneasy game obfuscates some quantifiable improvements for the Huskers and highlights some definite areas of concern
black41flashreverse.substack.com
Nebraska’s offense was instead asked to be efficient, and it largely was. Using success rate, the metric I think best captures down-to-down efficiency, NU was successful on 50.7% of its overall offensive plays on Thursday, and its pure isolated passing offense had a 52.6% success rate. That 50.7% overall success rate is 6 percentage points higher than NU’s season average for 2024 and is better than all of NU’s major-conference games last season outside of the win against Wisconsin. The 52.6% passing success rate was over 12 percentage points higher than NU’s season average for 2024 and better than it was for NU last season in any major-conference game. In short, Nebraska’s overall offense and passing attack were put in a situation Thursday where they had to be efficient to move the ball and responded to that with better efficiency than they showed at any point against a real team last season. That should be a cause for optimism about improvement on the unit, and instead the narrative seems to be about the low yards per attempt stat that congealed right after the game.
What should be actually concerning about Nebraska’s performance against that defensive structure is not a low passing yards per attempt but, instead, the lack of success of the running game.
Dropping eight into coverage with a three-player rush on almost two-thirds of your plays and playing a light box on 77.1% of your snaps should get you obliterated on the ground. NU instead had a merely fine rushing day: Emmett Johnson got over 100 yards, but that was off a heavy workload, and a lot of the underlying data was more problematic. NU had just a 40.9% success rate on true runs, which would be 9 percentage points worse than its season average in 2024 and its worst individual game performance outside of the Rutgers and Ohio State games. That was largely because it had just a 36.8% success rate on runs specifically into light boxes. The relative failure to run into the light boxes should be way more concerning than a Y/PA number. Even without deploying any resources to its front to stop the run, Cincy’s light box was largely able to stymie NU’s pure running game.
Hilltop
All-Conference
It's an excuse but a relevant one imo- we were facing arguably the best defensive lineman we will see all year. He is the primary reason Cinci was able to play light boxes and still stop the run.Ran across this somehow. And it is worth the read. It does cut off after a bit because it is paywalled, but $5/month seems like a good price if he puts together breakdowns like this each week.
2025 CINCINNATI RECAP: Aesthetics vs. Reality
An uneasy game obfuscates some quantifiable improvements for the Huskers and highlights some definite areas of concern
Nebraska’s offense was instead asked to be efficient, and it largely was. Using success rate, the metric I think best captures down-to-down efficiency, NU was successful on 50.7% of its overall offensive plays on Thursday, and its pure isolated passing offense had a 52.6% success rate. That 50.7% overall success rate is 6 percentage points higher than NU’s season average for 2024 and is better than all of NU’s major-conference games last season outside of the win against Wisconsin. The 52.6% passing success rate was over 12 percentage points higher than NU’s season average for 2024 and better than it was for NU last season in any major-conference game. In short, Nebraska’s overall offense and passing attack were put in a situation Thursday where they had to be efficient to move the ball and responded to that with better efficiency than they showed at any point against a real team last season. That should be a cause for optimism about improvement on the unit, and instead the narrative seems to be about the low yards per attempt stat that congealed right after the game.
What should be actually concerning about Nebraska’s performance against that defensive structure is not a low passing yards per attempt but, instead, the lack of success of the running game.
Dropping eight into coverage with a three-player rush on almost two-thirds of your plays and playing a light box on 77.1% of your snaps should get you obliterated on the ground. NU instead had a merely fine rushing day: Emmett Johnson got over 100 yards, but that was off a heavy workload, and a lot of the underlying data was more problematic. NU had just a 40.9% success rate on true runs, which would be 9 percentage points worse than its season average in 2024 and its worst individual game performance outside of the Rutgers and Ohio State games. That was largely because it had just a 36.8% success rate on runs specifically into light boxes. The relative failure to run into the light boxes should be way more concerning than a Y/PA number. Even without deploying any resources to its front to stop the run, Cincy’s light box was largely able to stymie NU’s pure running game.
Husker_In_WI
Guest
Would highly recommend the 5 bucks a month, it's good stuff. The season preview is free, and a few random other articles if people are interested in seeing more before spending money. https://black41flashreverse.substack.com/p/2025-preseason-superlatives-and-preview
It's always interesting to me which of my opinions are actually shared by people with more knowledge. I was pretty down on Spindler's game just from a couple random early plays that looked bad, this guy is not. I thought McGahee should've made more of a play on Cincy's first TD, Michael Rose-Ivey pinned it more on the safety. But so far everyone has agreed that Jeudy was inexcusably bad.
It's always interesting to me which of my opinions are actually shared by people with more knowledge. I was pretty down on Spindler's game just from a couple random early plays that looked bad, this guy is not. I thought McGahee should've made more of a play on Cincy's first TD, Michael Rose-Ivey pinned it more on the safety. But so far everyone has agreed that Jeudy was inexcusably bad.
Toe
All-American
SuperBigFan69
Head Coach
Years ago I was coaching middle school football and I ran a TE reverse. We got like 4-5 yards. One of my coaches came up to me and said "Run that again but run it the other way" Sure, why not.
We ran the same play just the other way and scored on a 50 yard TD run.
I went up to my coach and said "How did you know that would work?"
And he goes "Know? The first time you ran it you ran it to our 5'2 100 pound TE, the second time it was going to our other TE who is 6'0 tall and weighs 150 pounds and is the fastest kid on our team"
He just started laughing and so did I. Haha
One of the talking heads broke down the game and said the same thing. The first 4 in rotation did well, but the 2nd were abysmal at best. Said you either try to ride with the 1's and hope they stay healthy or mix them in (bad w/good) and hope it works and they improve......Not good....
Or do they get a pass because they’re not Nebraska?