Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0627th
  Defense−0.0492nd
• 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.
  Offense39.9%24th
  Defense38.2%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2259th
  Defense+1.1665th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0231st
  Defense−0.1699th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1344th
  Defense+0.0573rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%32nd
  Defense43.2%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%17th
  Defense28.8%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6521st
  Defense2.2198th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.6%11th
  Defense25.9%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense2.1%61st

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, 2015

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. L
   OU
2. L
   PITT
3. W
   SAV
4. W
   UL
5. L
   OHIO
6. W
   EMU
7. L
   BGSU
8. L
   CMU
9. W
   MASS
10. W
    M-OH
11. W
    BUF
12. W
    KENT
13. W
    USU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2015

1. Thomas WoodsonQB348 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 65th of 205 QBs
   1.42WAR0.87 to 1.94
2. Conor HundleyRB152 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 95th of 333 RBs
   0.27WAR0.13 to 0.41
3. Jerome LaneWR45 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 83rd of 411 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
4. Robert SteinPK17 plays · +0.452 pts/play · 35th of 115 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
5. Imani DavisWR65 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 172nd of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.21
6. Zach PaulP54 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 58th of 92 punters
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.16
7. Andrew PrattWR40 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 327th of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11
8. Kyle PohlQB10 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 201st of 205 QBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41341381st of 128Roster talent: 413, 81st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9090123rd of 128Recruiting: 90, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%87th of 127Returning production: 48%, 87th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.8−0.881st of 128SP+ rating: −0.8, 81st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.22 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 MASSQ4 13:39 4th & 1 at AKR 39, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. at USUQ4 0:06 4th & 12 at USU 45, up 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
3. vs PITTQ4 14:46 4th & 1 at AKR 39, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. vs PITTQ3 4:19 4th & 1 at AKR 38, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at MASSQ4 1:59 4th & 4 at AKR 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs KENTQ2 6:11 4th & 1 at KENT 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at USUQ1 1:03 4th & 1 at AKR 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs BUFQ3 13:43 4th & 2 at BUF 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

11th 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. L

   OU
2. L

   PITT
3. W

   SAV
4. W

   UL
5. L

   OHIO
6. W

   EMU
7. L

   BGSU
8. L

   CMU
9. W

   MASS
10. W

    M-OH
11. W

    BUF
12. W

    KENT
13. W

    USU

What moved it, 2015

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+1.84
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• OUL 3-41 at OU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• PITTL 7-24 vs PITT16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• SAVW 52-9 vs SAV99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• ULW 35-14 at UL28% → 99%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +63, Clock +2
• OHIOL 12-14 vs OHIO34% → 10%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −36, Clock −3
• EMUW 47-21 at EMU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• BGSUL 10-59 at BGSU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −21
• CMUL 6-14 vs CMU38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• MASSW 17-13 at MASS40% → 94%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• M-OHW 37-28 at M-OH65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• BUFW 42-21 vs BUF52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +1
• KENTW 20-0 vs KENT75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• USUW 23-21 at USU32% → 86%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4

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.