Michigan wolverines football vs nebraska cornhuskers football match player stats
The michigan wolverines football vs nebraska cornhuskers football match player stats from September 20, 2025, reveal a game decided by a powerful rushing attack, defensive pressure, and reliable field-goal kicking. Michigan defeated Nebraska 30-27 in a closely contested Big Ten matchup, overcoming Nebraska’s advantage in passing production to secure an important conference victory. Justice Haynes led Michigan on the ground with 149 rushing yards, while Nebraska quarterback Dylan Raiola delivered 308 passing yards and three touchdown passes. The contrasting offensive approaches made this game a compelling example of how rushing efficiency, quarterback production, and execution in critical moments can shape a college football result.
The final score tells only part of the story. Michigan accumulated 286 rushing yards, Nebraska managed just 43, and the Wolverines finished with 391 total offensive yards compared with Nebraska’s 351. Nebraska generated more through the air, but Michigan’s ability to create explosive running plays and convert field-goal opportunities helped establish the difference. Examining the individual statistics, team performance, defensive contributions, and scoring progression provides a clearer understanding of how Michigan earned the three-point win.
Game Overview: Michigan Wolverines vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers
The September 20 contest featured two teams entering the game with 3-0 records according to their pregame standings. Michigan finished the matchup at 3-1 overall and 1-0 in Big Ten play, while Nebraska dropped to 3-1 overall and 0-1 in conference action.
FINAL SCORE · SEPTEMBER 20, 2025
Michigan Wolverines
3-1 overall · 1-0 Big Ten
30
Nebraska Cornhuskers
3-1 overall · 0-1 Big Ten
27
Total offense
391 yards
Michigan
Total offense
351 yards
Nebraska
Quick Match Facts
| Category | Details |
| Matchup | Michigan Wolverines vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers |
| Date | September 20, 2025 |
| Competition | NCAA college football, Big Ten |
| Final score | Michigan 30, Nebraska 27 |
| Winning team | Michigan |
| Losing team | Nebraska |
| Michigan passing yards | 105 |
| Nebraska passing yards | 308 |
| Michigan rushing yards | 286 |
| Nebraska rushing yards | 43 |
| Total offensive yards | Michigan 391, Nebraska 351 |
| Biggest statistical advantage | Michigan’s 243-yard rushing margin |
| ESPN game ID | 401752846 |
The most revealing detail is that Michigan gained only 40 more total yards than Nebraska despite producing 203 fewer passing yards. The Wolverines compensated with a massive advantage on the ground, allowing them to build a more balanced total offensive performance without needing a high-volume passing game.
Michigan Wolverines Football vs Nebraska Cornhuskers Football Match Player Stats
The michigan wolverines football vs nebraska cornhuskers football match player stats show a clear contrast between Michigan’s explosive rushing game and Nebraska’s productive passing attack. Both offenses created scoring opportunities, but their methods of moving the ball were very different.
Michigan relied on explosive runs from Justice Haynes, Jordan Marshall, and quarterback Bryce Underwood. Nebraska depended heavily on Dylan Raiola’s arm and Jacory Barney Jr.’s ability to turn receptions into significant gains.
Team Statistics Comparison
| Statistical category | Michigan | Nebraska |
| Final score | 30 | 27 |
| Total offensive yards | 391 | 351 |
| Rushing yards | 286 | 43 |
| Passing yards | 105 | 308 |
| Rushing attempts | 33 | 31 |
| Passing completions | 12 | 30 |
| Passing attempts | 23 | 41 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 3 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 3 | 0 |
| Total first downs | 16 | 23 |
| Third-down conversions | 4 of 12 | 2 of 13 |
| Fourth-down conversions | 0 of 0 | 2 of 3 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 7 | 1 |
| Turnovers lost | 1 | 0 |
| Time of possession | 26:43 | 33:17 |
| Penalties | 4 for 39 yards | 3 for 9 yards |
Statistics are based on the supplied game data and the official team box score.
Several figures stand out immediately. Nebraska controlled possession for more than six additional minutes and recorded seven more first downs. Nevertheless, Michigan averaged 7.0 yards per offensive play, compared with Nebraska’s 4.9.
This difference matters because first downs and possession time measure how consistently a team sustains drives, while yards per play indicate how much ground an offense gains each time it runs a play. Michigan generated more explosive gains, allowing it to score efficiently without matching Nebraska’s play volume.
Quarterback Performance: Bryce Underwood vs. Dylan Raiola
The quarterback comparison captures one of the most interesting aspects of this contest. Raiola produced the stronger passing numbers, but Underwood contributed significantly to Michigan’s rushing success.
Bryce Underwood’s passing and rushing statistics
Bryce Underwood
Michigan quarterback
Passing yards
105
Completion rate
54.5%
Passing TDs
0
Rushing yards
61
Underwood completed 12 of 22 passes for 105 yards. He averaged 4.8 yards per attempt, threw no interceptions, and did not record a passing touchdown.
Those passing numbers were modest compared with Nebraska’s production. However, Underwood offered another dimension to the offense through his running ability.
His eight rushing attempts produced 61 yards and a touchdown, including a 37-yard scoring run in the first quarter. That touchdown gave Michigan a 10-0 lead and demonstrated how the quarterback’s mobility could punish defensive alignments designed primarily to stop the running backs.
Underwood’s performance can be evaluated through three important factors:
- Passing efficiency: His 105 yards on 22 attempts indicate that Michigan did not rely on consistent downfield passing production.
- Running threat: His 61 rushing yards and touchdown added a valuable scoring option.
- Ball security: He threw no interceptions, although his lost fumble gave Nebraska an important possession.
The overall lesson is that quarterback value cannot always be measured by passing totals alone. Underwood’s contribution to the ground game helped Michigan create explosive plays that compensated for its limited passing output.
Dylan Raiola’s passing statistics
Dylan Raiola
Nebraska quarterback
Passing yards
308
Completion rate
73.2%
Passing TDs
3
Interceptions
1
Raiola completed 30 of 41 passes for 308 yards and three touchdowns. He averaged 7.5 yards per attempt, giving Nebraska a productive passing attack throughout the contest.
His completion rate of approximately 73.2% shows that Nebraska frequently found ways to complete passes and sustain offensive drives. Raiola also connected with Barney for two touchdowns and threw a short scoring pass to Heinrich Haarberg in the fourth quarter.
Yet the quarterback faced considerable pressure. Michigan recorded seven sacks for 49 yards lost, disrupting Nebraska’s offensive rhythm and making several passing situations more difficult.
Raiola’s individual production was impressive, but his rushing total was negative 49 yards on seven attempts. Sacks account for much of that loss, so it would be misleading to treat the figure as evidence that Nebraska’s designed running game alone failed.
Raiola also threw one interception, recorded by Michigan linebacker Cole Sullivan. That turnover was one of the defensive plays that helped Michigan withstand Nebraska’s late comeback attempt.
Quarterback comparison table
| Statistic | Bryce Underwood | Dylan Raiola |
| Completions | 12 | 30 |
| Pass attempts | 22 | 41 |
| Passing yards | 105 | 308 |
| Completion percentage | 54.5% | 73.2% |
| Yards per attempt | 4.8 | 7.5 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Rushing yards | 61 | -49 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
Raiola won the passing comparison by a wide margin. Underwood, however, contributed more directly to Michigan’s rushing success. The difference between their performances reflects each team’s offensive identity rather than a simple measure of which quarterback played better overall.
Michigan Rushing Leaders: Justice Haynes Leads the Way
Michigan’s rushing attack was the decisive statistical advantage in the game. The Wolverines accumulated 286 rushing yards on 33 attempts, averaging 8.7 yards per carry and scoring three rushing touchdowns.
That efficiency gave Michigan the ability to score quickly, even when Nebraska’s offense controlled possession for extended periods.
Justice Haynes rushing stats
Justice Haynes
Michigan running back
Carries
17
Rushing yards
149
Yards per carry
8.8
Touchdowns
1
Haynes was Michigan’s leading rusher, recording 149 yards on 17 carries. His 75-yard touchdown run in the second quarter was one of the defining plays of the game.
The run came immediately after Nebraska had tied the score at 10-10 on a touchdown pass from Raiola to Barney. Haynes answered almost instantly, restoring Michigan’s lead with a single explosive play.
That sequence illustrates why explosive rushing matters so much in football. Nebraska needed a sustained drive to reach the end zone, but Michigan required only one play to cover 75 yards.
Haynes averaged 8.8 yards per carry, an exceptional figure for a running back with 17 attempts. His production helped Michigan maintain a credible rushing threat even when the passing game was not generating large gains.
Jordan Marshall rushing stats
Jordan Marshall
Michigan running back
Carries
6
Rushing yards
80
Yards per carry
13.3
Touchdowns
1
Marshall provided another explosive contribution, gaining 80 yards on six carries. His longest run covered 54 yards and ended in a touchdown during the third quarter.
Michigan’s lead increased to 27-17 following the play. The score was especially important because it came after a 56-yard field goal by Dominic Zvada had restored Michigan’s advantage.
Marshall’s 13.3 yards per carry exceeded even Haynes’ average. Although his workload was smaller, he demonstrated that Michigan had multiple players capable of producing substantial gains.
Bryce Underwood’s rushing contribution
Underwood added 61 yards and one touchdown on eight carries. His 37-yard scoring run in the opening quarter gave Michigan another way to exploit Nebraska’s defensive alignment.
Together, Haynes, Marshall, and Underwood supplied the core of Michigan’s ground production. Their individual figures explain why the Wolverines could remain dangerous despite finishing with just 105 passing yards.
Michigan rushing summary
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest run |
| Justice Haynes | 17 | 149 | 8.8 | 1 | 75 yards |
| Jordan Marshall | 6 | 80 | 13.3 | 1 | 54 yards |
| Bryce Underwood | 8 | 61 | 7.6 | 1 | 37 yards |
| Michigan team | 33 | 286 | 8.7 | 3 | 75 yards |
Michigan’s rushing total exceeded Nebraska’s by 243 yards. This was not a small advantage produced by a handful of extra carries. It was a major difference in how effectively the two teams gained yardage on the ground.
Nebraska Rushing Performance and Emmett Johnson’s Contribution
Nebraska’s rushing attack struggled to produce the same impact. The Cornhuskers recorded 43 net rushing yards on 31 attempts, averaging 1.4 yards per carry and scoring no rushing touchdowns.
Emmett Johnson rushing stats
Emmett Johnson
Nebraska running back
Carries
19
Rushing yards
65
Yards per carry
3.4
Rushing TDs
0
Johnson led Nebraska’s individual rushing statistics with 65 yards on 19 carries. His 3.4-yard average was much lower than the production Michigan received from its leading backs.
The comparison also highlights the challenge facing Nebraska’s offense. The Cornhuskers could complete passes and move the ball through the air, but their limited rushing output made it harder to establish a balanced attack.
When a team struggles to gain yards on early rushing downs, it can face more difficult third-down situations. That places additional pressure on the quarterback to deliver accurate passes while the defense anticipates a passing play.
Johnson also contributed as a receiver, catching five passes for 32 yards. His involvement in both phases of the offense made him a useful outlet for Raiola, particularly when Michigan applied pressure.
Other Nebraska rushing contributors
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Emmett Johnson | 19 | 65 | 3.4 | 0 |
| Mekhi Nelson | 3 | 19 | 6.3 | 0 |
| Jacory Barney Jr. | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Isaiah Mozee | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Dylan Raiola | 7 | -49 | -7.0 | 0 |
| Nebraska team | 31 | 43 net | 1.4 | 0 |
The team rushing figure is a net total, which includes yardage lost on sacks. This distinction is essential when interpreting Nebraska’s numbers. The offense gained 94 yards on rushing plays before accounting for 51 yards lost, leaving 43 net yards.
Michigan’s defensive front deserves credit for that result. The Wolverines combined strong run defense with consistent pressure on Raiola, forcing Nebraska to rely heavily on short and intermediate passes to maintain its offense.
Receiving Statistics: Jacory Barney Jr. Leads Nebraska
Nebraska’s passing production was driven by several productive receivers, with Jacory Barney Jr. standing out as the most explosive target. Michigan’s receiving numbers were more modest, reflecting the team’s run-first offensive approach.
Nebraska receiving leaders
Jacory Barney Jr.
Nebraska wide receiver
Receptions
6
Receiving yards
120
Average
20.0
Touchdowns
2
Barney finished with six receptions for 120 yards and two touchdowns. His 20.0 yards per reception was the highest average among Nebraska’s primary receiving contributors.
His first touchdown came on a 26-yard pass from Raiola in the second quarter, bringing Nebraska level at 10-10. His second was even more dramatic: a 52-yard touchdown reception on the final play of the first half.
That late score tied the game at 17-17 and gave Nebraska significant momentum heading into halftime.
Barney’s performance demonstrated how Nebraska could create explosive plays even when its running game was struggling. He turned a relatively small number of receptions into a major share of the team’s passing production.
Complete Nebraska receiving statistics
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Touchdowns | Longest catch |
| Jacory Barney Jr. | 6 | 120 | 20.0 | 2 | 52 yards |
| Luke Lindenmeyer | 7 | 60 | 8.6 | 0 | 23 yards |
| Dane Key | 3 | 36 | 12.0 | 0 | 21 yards |
| Nyziah Hunter | 2 | 34 | 17.0 | 0 | 21 yards |
| Emmett Johnson | 5 | 32 | 6.4 | 0 | 8 yards |
| Heinrich Haarberg | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 1 | 9 yards |
| Quinn Clark | 1 | 14 | 14.0 | 0 | 14 yards |
| Cortez Mills Jr. | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 | 10 yards |
| Mekhi Nelson | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 0 | Not specified |
| Henry Lutovsky | 1 | -12 | -12.0 | 0 | Not specified |
| Nebraska team | 30 | 308 | 10.3 | 3 | 52 yards |
Lindenmeyer led the team in receptions with seven, finishing with 60 yards. His role provided Raiola with a consistent short-to-intermediate passing option.
Hunter averaged 17.0 yards per reception on two catches, showing that Nebraska had another receiver capable of gaining significant yardage. Key added 36 yards, while Haarberg recorded a receiving touchdown from three yards out in the fourth quarter.
The range of contributors helped Nebraska produce 308 passing yards. However, the team still needed to overcome Michigan’s rushing advantage and defensive pressure to turn that yardage into a win.
Michigan receiving leaders
Michigan did not produce a receiving touchdown, but several players contributed to the team’s passing attack.
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Touchdowns |
| Donaven McCulley | 3 | 39 | 13.0 | 0 |
| Semaj Morgan | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Marlin Klein | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 0 |
| Justice Haynes | 3 | 12 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Zack Marshall | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Channing Goodwin | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Michigan team | 12 | 105 | 8.8 | 0 |
McCulley led Michigan with 39 receiving yards on three catches. Morgan and Klein provided additional targets, while Haynes contributed as both a runner and a receiver.
The receiving figures reinforce the difference between the two offensive strategies. Nebraska used its passing game to generate most of its yardage, whereas Michigan used passing primarily as a supporting element of a highly effective rushing attack.
Defensive Player Stats: Michigan’s Pass Rush Makes the Difference
Michigan’s defensive performance was crucial to the final outcome. The Wolverines recorded seven sacks, nine tackles for loss, three passes defended, and one interception.
Those numbers help explain why Nebraska’s offense, despite gaining 308 passing yards, averaged only 4.9 yards per play.
Michigan defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss |
| Ernest Hausmann | 9 | 6 | 1 | 1 |
| Jayden Sanders | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Brandyn Hillman | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Cole Sullivan | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Jimmy Rolder | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Jaishawn Barham | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Rayshaun Benny | 3 | 1 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Derrick Moore | 3 | 1 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
Hausmann led Michigan with nine total tackles, including six solo tackles and one sack. His workload reflected his importance in stopping Nebraska’s offensive plays before they could develop into larger gains.
Sanders recorded eight tackles, while Hillman added seven. These contributions were important because Nebraska ran 72 offensive plays, giving Michigan’s defenders repeated opportunities to make stops.
The most notable team statistic was the seven-sack total. Michigan repeatedly pressured Raiola, contributing to the negative rushing figure recorded by the quarterback and making Nebraska’s passing game less comfortable.
Benny and Moore each recorded 1.5 sacks, while Barham and Rolder added a sack apiece. The combined pressure showed that Michigan’s defensive production was not dependent on a single pass rusher.
Cole Sullivan’s interception
Cole Sullivan recorded Michigan’s interception, which gave the defense an important turnover-producing play.
The interception must be considered alongside the team’s overall defensive work. Nebraska had a productive passing day and completed 30 passes, but Michigan managed to disrupt enough plays to prevent that passing volume from becoming a decisive scoring advantage.
The Wolverines also recovered no fumbles of their own, while Nebraska recovered Bryce Underwood’s lost fumble. This means Michigan’s defensive edge came from the interception and pressure rather than winning every turnover opportunity.
Nebraska defensive leaders
Nebraska’s defense also had productive individual performers, even though the team struggled to contain Michigan’s running game.
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss |
| Javin Wright | 10 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Vincent Shavers Jr. | 7 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Donovan Jones | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Rex Guthrie | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| DeShon Singleton | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Andrew Marshall | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Jeudy | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Dasan McCullough | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Wright led Nebraska with 10 total tackles, while Shavers recorded seven. Jones and Guthrie also made meaningful contributions in the tackle column.
McCullough recorded one sack and two tackles for loss, providing one of Nebraska’s more notable individual defensive performances.
The broader problem was explosive-play prevention. Nebraska recorded only one sack compared with Michigan’s seven and allowed three rushing touchdowns. Even with individual defenders making tackles, the unit struggled to prevent Michigan from breaking through for long gains.
Special Teams: Dominic Zvada’s Perfect Field-Goal Performance
Special teams played a meaningful role in a game decided by three points.
Michigan kicker Dominic Zvada converted all three field-goal attempts, including a 56-yard kick in the third quarter. Nebraska kicker Kyle Cunanan made two of three field goals and converted all three extra-point attempts.
Kicking statistics
| Statistic | Dominic Zvada | Kyle Cunanan |
| Team | Michigan | Nebraska |
| Field goals made | 3 | 2 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 3 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 66.7% |
| Longest field goal | 56 yards | 39 yards |
| Extra points made | 3 | 3 |
| Total kicking points | 12 | 9 |
Zvada’s consistency helped Michigan secure the victory. His field goals came from 46, 56, and 21 yards, according to the official scoring record. The 56-yard kick was particularly important because it extended Michigan’s lead in the third quarter.
The final field goal was also significant. Michigan drove 77 yards on a 16-play possession that consumed 8 minutes and 46 seconds before Zvada converted from 21 yards. That possession made the score 30-20 with 3:54 remaining.
Nebraska scored a touchdown afterward, but the late drive left the Cornhuskers three points short.
Punting and return statistics
| Category | Michigan | Nebraska |
| Punts | 4 | 4 |
| Total punt yards | 164 | 197 |
| Average punt | 41.0 yards | 49.3 yards |
| Longest punt | 49 yards | 56 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 0 |
| Punt returns | 1 | 3 |
| Punt return yards | -1 | 21 |
| Kick returns | 1 | 1 |
| Kick return yards | 1 | 23 |
Nebraska had the stronger average punting distance, while Michigan placed one punt inside the 20-yard line. Nebraska also gained more on punt and kickoff returns.
These numbers show that special teams was not uniformly dominated by Michigan. Instead, the most important difference was the Wolverines’ perfect field-goal record and their ability to turn offensive opportunities into points.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring progression shows how Michigan built its lead, how Nebraska responded, and why the fourth quarter proved decisive.
Points by quarter
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
Points scored by Michigan and Nebraska in each quarter.
■ Michigan
■ Nebraska
First quarter: Michigan takes control
Michigan scored 10 unanswered points in the opening quarter. Zvada opened the scoring with a 46-yard field goal, and Underwood followed with a 37-yard touchdown run.
The early lead allowed Michigan to establish its preferred offensive approach. Rather than needing to throw frequently, the Wolverines could continue testing Nebraska’s run defense and look for opportunities to create explosive plays.
Second quarter: Nebraska responds
Nebraska scored 17 points in the second quarter, tying the game at halftime.
Cunanan opened the scoring for Nebraska with a 39-yard field goal. Raiola then connected with Barney for a 26-yard touchdown pass to level the score.
Haynes responded with his 75-yard rushing touchdown, but Nebraska answered once again. Raiola found Barney for a 52-yard touchdown on the final play of the half, sending the teams to the locker room tied at 17-17.
The quarter demonstrated Nebraska’s ability to recover from early setbacks. It also showed Michigan’s vulnerability to explosive passing plays, even while the Wolverines were winning the rushing battle.
Third quarter: Michigan creates separation
Michigan scored 10 points without allowing Nebraska to score.
Zvada converted a 56-yard field goal, and Marshall then broke free for a 54-yard rushing touchdown. Those two scores moved Michigan ahead 27-17.
The sequence was a turning point because Michigan regained control through two very different scoring methods. Zvada provided reliable kicking, while Marshall’s long run once again exposed Nebraska’s difficulty containing the ground game.
Fourth quarter: A late Nebraska comeback falls short
Nebraska cut the deficit to seven points with a 38-yard field goal early in the fourth quarter.
Michigan then produced a long possession that ended with Zvada’s 21-yard field goal, restoring a 10-point advantage at 30-20.
Raiola connected with Haarberg for a three-yard touchdown with 1:34 remaining, bringing Nebraska within three points. However, Michigan’s lead held, and the Wolverines finished with a 30-27 victory.
The final quarter illustrated the importance of clock management. Michigan’s long scoring drive reduced Nebraska’s remaining opportunities, even though the Cornhuskers found the end zone late.
Why Michigan Won Despite Nebraska’s Passing Advantage
The central question from this matchup is straightforward: how did Michigan win when Nebraska produced 308 passing yards and three passing touchdowns?
The answer lies in the difference between total production and the way that production translates into points.
1. Michigan generated explosive rushing plays
Michigan had three rushing touchdowns, with long scoring runs from Underwood, Haynes, and Marshall. These plays allowed the Wolverines to score without requiring long sequences of completed passes.
Explosive plays can dramatically change a game because they reduce the number of successful plays required to reach the end zone. Haynes’ 75-yard run, for example, covered the entire distance from Michigan’s starting field position to the goal line in one carry.
2. Nebraska struggled to run the ball
Nebraska’s 43 net rushing yards were far below Michigan’s 286. That 243-yard difference was the largest statistical gap between the teams.
The Cornhuskers remained productive through the air, but their limited ground production made their offense more dependent on Raiola. Michigan’s seven sacks further complicated that dependence.
3. Michigan converted all its field-goal attempts
Zvada made all three field goals, including a long third-quarter kick and the late field goal that increased Michigan’s lead to 10 points.
In a game decided by three points, successful kicking was particularly valuable. Nebraska made two of its three attempts, leaving points on the field.
4. Defensive pressure disrupted Nebraska’s offense
Michigan recorded seven sacks, compared with Nebraska’s one. Those plays created negative yardage and helped limit Nebraska’s overall offensive efficiency.
The Wolverines also recorded an interception. Although Nebraska had more first downs and more possession time, Michigan’s defense produced important stops and prevented the Cornhuskers from converting their passing advantage into a larger lead.
5. Michigan made better use of fewer plays
Michigan ran 56 offensive plays, while Nebraska ran 72. Yet Michigan generated 391 yards compared with Nebraska’s 351.
That difference reflects Michigan’s greater explosiveness. The Wolverines averaged 7.0 yards per play, while Nebraska averaged 4.9.
Nebraska’s longer drives helped it control possession, but Michigan’s shorter scoring sequences proved highly effective.
What the Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The box score offers several useful lessons beyond the final result.
Michigan’s offensive identity
Michigan demonstrated that an offense does not need to dominate passing statistics to win. A strong rushing attack can create efficient scoring opportunities, especially when multiple players can produce explosive gains.
The combination of Haynes, Marshall, and Underwood gave Michigan three different rushing threats. This variety made it more difficult for Nebraska to focus exclusively on stopping one player.
However, Michigan’s 105 passing yards also show a potential limitation. When the running game is less effective against a future opponent, the offense may need more consistent passing production to maintain its efficiency.
Nebraska’s offensive strengths and weaknesses
Nebraska showed that Raiola could distribute the ball effectively. His 30 completions, 308 yards, and three touchdowns represented strong passing production.
Barney’s 120 receiving yards were especially important, and multiple other receivers contributed to the passing game.
The challenge was balance. Nebraska’s 43 net rushing yards and seven sacks allowed limited the overall effectiveness of an offense that otherwise moved the ball well.
Improving early-down rushing efficiency and protecting the quarterback would help reduce the pressure on the passing game.
The importance of situational execution
The game also highlighted the value of third-down defense, field-goal accuracy, and long scoring drives.
Nebraska recorded 23 first downs to Michigan’s 16, but Michigan averaged more yards per play and converted its field-goal opportunities. The Wolverines also used an extended fourth-quarter drive to reduce the time available for Nebraska’s comeback.
These factors explain why a team can lead in several traditional statistics and still lose. Success depends not only on how much yardage a team accumulates, but also on when that yardage occurs and how effectively it becomes points.
Official Box Score and Statistical Reliability
For readers who want to verify the figures, the official Michigan Athletics box score for the Nebraska game provides the scoring summary, team statistics, player statistics, and play-by-play details.
The figures in this article are based on the supplied game data and the official team record. Some secondary statistical summaries can display team totals in a different column order, so it is important to check the team labels when comparing passing, rushing, and kicking statistics.
Another important distinction is the difference between gross rushing yards and net rushing yards. Nebraska gained 94 yards on rushing plays before losing 51 yards, primarily through sacks. Its resulting net rushing total was 43 yards. This explains why the combined individual rushing figures should not be interpreted without accounting for negative plays.
The defensive statistics supplied for a few individual players were incomplete or potentially misaligned. Where full individual data were unavailable, those figures should not be guessed. Team totals and clearly specified player statistics provide the soundest basis for evaluating this game.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of Michigan vs. Nebraska on September 20, 2025?
Michigan defeated Nebraska 30-27. The Wolverines scored 10 points in the first quarter and another 10 in the third, while Nebraska scored 17 points in the second quarter and 10 in the fourth.
2. Who was the leading rusher in the Michigan vs. Nebraska game?
Justice Haynes led Michigan with 149 rushing yards on 17 carries, averaging 8.8 yards per carry. His longest run was a 75-yard touchdown that helped Michigan regain the lead in the second quarter.
3. How many passing yards did Dylan Raiola record against Michigan?
Dylan Raiola completed 30 of 41 passes for 308 yards, three touchdowns, and one interception. He averaged 7.5 yards per attempt and connected with Jacory Barney Jr. for two touchdown passes.
4. How many rushing yards did Michigan gain against Nebraska?
Michigan recorded 286 net rushing yards on 33 attempts, averaging 8.7 yards per carry. The Wolverines scored three rushing touchdowns through Justice Haynes, Jordan Marshall, and Bryce Underwood.
5. Who led Nebraska in receiving yards?
Jacory Barney Jr. led Nebraska with 120 receiving yards on six catches. He averaged 20 yards per reception and scored two touchdowns, including a 52-yard touchdown on the final play of the first half.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference in the game?
The biggest difference was rushing production. Michigan recorded 286 net rushing yards, compared with Nebraska’s 43, a gap of 243 yards. Michigan also recorded seven sacks, compared with Nebraska’s one, helping offset Nebraska’s advantage in passing yards.
Conclusion
The michigan wolverines football vs nebraska cornhuskers football match player stats explain how Michigan secured a 30-27 victory despite Nebraska’s superior passing numbers and longer time of possession. The Wolverines gained 391 total yards, including 286 rushing yards, while Nebraska finished with 351 total yards and 308 passing yards.
Justice Haynes led Michigan’s rushing attack with 149 yards, Jordan Marshall contributed an explosive 54-yard touchdown run, and Bryce Underwood added a rushing score of his own. On the Nebraska side, Dylan Raiola threw for 308 yards and three touchdowns, while Jacory Barney Jr. recorded 120 receiving yards and two scores.
Michigan’s seven sacks, Cole Sullivan’s interception, and Dominic Zvada’s perfect three-for-three field-goal performance were also important factors. The fourth-quarter field goal gave Michigan a 10-point cushion before Nebraska scored its final touchdown.
Ultimately, the game demonstrated the impact of explosive rushing plays, defensive pressure, and reliable kicking. Nebraska moved the ball effectively through the air, but Michigan generated more yards per play and made better use of its biggest scoring opportunities. The final score reflected a closely contested game in which the Wolverines’ ground production and situational execution proved decisive.
