Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0311th
  Defense+0.1258th
• 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.
  Offense41.2%31st
  Defense40.9%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.065th
  Defense+1.1954th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0531st
  Defense+0.1146th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.027th
  Defense+0.1668th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%41st
  Defense44.2%77th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%20th
  Defense34.1%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0564th
  Defense2.8847th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%52nd
  Defense22.7%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%37th
  Defense1.7%31st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Akron 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
   HOW
2. L
   PSU
3. L
   MRSH
4. W
   PITT
5. W
   EMU
6. W
   M-OH
7. L
   OHIO
8. L
   BALL
9. L
   BGSU
10. L
    BUF
11. W
    MASS
12. L
    KENT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2014

1. Kyle PohlQB320 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 98th of 199 QBs
   1.04WAR0.58 to 1.52
2. Thomas WoodsonQB125 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 137th of 199 QBs
   0.57WAR0.36 to 0.76
3. Jawon ChisholmRB101 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 91st of 350 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.34
4. Zach D'OrazioWR80 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 96th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
5. Conor HundleyRB105 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 138th of 350 RBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
6. L.T. SmithWR57 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 165th of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
7. Robert SteinPK14 plays · +0.452 pts/play · 46th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
8. Zach PaulP56 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 54th of 94 punters
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.17

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 Akron'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Akron's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.20 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. at OHIOQ4 10:36 4th & 5 at OHIO 33, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. vs MASSQ2 8:25 4th & 1 at MASS 7, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. at KENTQ2 9:56 4th & 1 at AKR 49, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. at BALLQ3 13:41 4th & 1 at AKR 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at OHIOQ2 4:50 4th & 2 at OHIO 23, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at PSUQ2 4:32 4th & 5 at PSU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at BUFQ2 13:51 4th & 2 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs M-OHQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at AKR 43, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

121st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Akron's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   HOW
2. L

   PSU
3. L

   MRSH
4. W

   PITT
5. W

   EMU
6. W

   M-OH
7. L

   OHIO
8. L

   BALL
9. L

   BGSU
10. L

    BUF
11. W

    MASS
12. L

    KENT

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Akron'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−1.32
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.43

Game by game

• HOWW 41-0 vs HOW92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• PSUL 3-21 at PSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• MRSHL 17-48 vs MRSH18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• PITTW 21-10 at PITT12% → 97%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +61, Clock +4
• EMUW 31-6 vs EMU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• M-OHW 29-19 vs M-OH82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• OHIOL 20-23 at OHIO66% → 9%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• BALLL 21-35 at BALL60% → 1%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2
• BGSUL 10-27 vs BGSU65% → 2%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• BUFL 24-55 at BUF58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −52
• MASSW 30-6 vs MASS70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32
• KENTL 24-27 at KENT67% → 8%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Akron's side.

Closest call

MORG 21-24 AKR (2023) - Akron dropped to a 4.0% win probability before pulling it out.