How to read this: every angle below is a true fact about these teams — and there are hundreds, so some will look striking by pure chance. Each side's combinations carry a chance baseline telling you how good the best one would look if nothing were going on. FBS teams carry far less history than NFL ones (a median of 148 graded games vs ~435), so that baseline runs higher here — a perfect record is cheaper in college. Signals disagreeing is normal; weigh them yourself.
Nebraska — the basics
137 graded games since 2014
| on the road | 30-25 | 55% | -1.7 | n=55 |
| vs Rutgers | 3-2 | 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| in a conference game | 43-56 | 43% | -3.0 | n=99 |
| vs an FBS opponent | 60-71 | 46% | -2.4 | n=131 |
| vs a P5 opponent | 51-64 | 44% | -3.0 | n=115 |
| vs the Big Ten | 43-56 | 43% | -3.0 | n=99 |
| in November | 20-22 | 48% | -3.3 | n=42 |
| in the last 5 seasons | 27-31 | 47% | -1.1 | n=58 |
record vs the closing number · pts = avg margin vs the line
Nebraska — form & streaks
| Last 12 games: -3.1 pts vs their number per game | n=12 |
| All 137 graded games: -2.5 pts vs their number per game | n=137 |
| Nebraska has failed to cover 3 straight | n=3 |
Nebraska — combinations
28 lean Nebraska · 77 lean against
Read this first. 113 combinations shown. The best one here is 60%. With this many combinations you'd expect the best to be about 60% by chance alone, and about 0 perfect records — this matchup has 0.
| Combination | Rec | % | Pts | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| vs Rutgers + in a conference game | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs an FBS opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs a P5 opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs the Big Ten | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs a P5 opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs the Big Ten | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs the Big Ten | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| vs Rutgers + vs an FBS opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs a P5 opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs the Big Ten | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs the Big Ten | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| vs Rutgers + vs a P5 opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| + vs the Big Ten | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| vs Rutgers + vs the Big Ten | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | +1.7 | n=5 |
| on the road + vs an FBS opponent | 30-25 | 55%from 55% | -1.7 | n=55 |
| + vs a P5 opponent | 29-25 | 54%from 55% | -2.2 | n=54 |
| + vs the Big Ten | 26-23 | 53%from 54% | -2.3 | n=49 |
| + in the last 5 seasons | 10-11 | 48%from 54% | -2.1 | n=21 |
| + in November | 9-10 | 47%from 54% | -2.9 | n=19 |
| + vs the Big Ten | 26-23 | 53%from 55% | -2.3 | n=49 |
| + in November | 9-10 | 47%from 53% | -2.9 | n=19 |
| + in the last 5 seasons | 9-10 | 47%from 53% | -2.1 | n=19 |
| + in the last 5 seasons | 10-11 | 48%from 55% | -2.1 | n=21 |
| + in November | 9-10 | 47%from 55% | -2.9 | n=19 |
| + in the last 5 seasons | 3-4 | 43%from 47% | +0.2 | n=7 |
indented rows narrow the one above · click any row for the games behind it
Informational only. Historical splits are shared for analysis and entertainment — not betting advice or any guarantee of outcome. A trend describes the past; it does not predict. Must be 21+ where applicable. If gambling is a problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER.