Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0728th
  Defense+0.1532nd
• 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.
  Offense40.2%17th
  Defense46.5%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3497th
  Defense+1.1283rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0213th
  Defense+0.1037th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1543rd
  Defense+0.2231st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.8%11th
  Defense48.6%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.1%52nd
  Defense41.4%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.599th
  Defense3.1320th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.3%3rd
  Defense17.5%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%12th
  Defense12.8%9th

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, 2016

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
   VMI
2. L
   WIS
3. W
   MRSH
4. L
   APP
5. W
   KENT
6. W
   M-OH
7. L
   WMU
8. W
   BALL
9. L
   BUF
10. L
    TOL
11. L
    BGSU
12. L
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2016

1. Thomas WoodsonQB225 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 77th of 218 QBs
   1.11WAR0.74 to 1.44
2. Jerome LaneWR73 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 19th of 417 WRs
   0.33WAR0.21 to 0.45
3. Tra'Von ChapmanQB129 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 145th of 218 QBs
   0.32WAR0.06 to 0.58
4. Van Edwards Jr.RB91 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 133rd of 347 RBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.37
5. JoJo NatsonWR84 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 95th of 417 WRs
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.29
6. Manny MorganRB61 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 194th of 347 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.22
7. Austin WolfWR67 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 169th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.21
8. A.J. ConeyWR21 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 342nd of 417 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44444480th of 128Roster talent: 444, 80th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8787127th of 128Recruiting: 87, 127th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%47th of 128Returning production: 71%, 47th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.6−5.690th of 128SP+ rating: −5.6, 90th 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, 2016

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 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. vs BGSUQ3 3:40 4th & 1 at AKR 38, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at KENTQ4 5:55 4th & 14 at KENT 32, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.2 pts
3. at BUFQ3 7:55 4th & 3 at BUF 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs M-OHQ3 6:49 4th & 1 at AKR 44, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. at KENTQ4 10:14 4th & 3 at AKR 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. at BUFQ3 0:18 4th & 10 at BUF 25, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
7. at BALLQ2 9:30 4th & 3 at BALL 39, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at BUFQ2 10:48 4th & 1 at AKR 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

83rd 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

   VMI
2. L

   WIS
3. W

   MRSH
4. L

   APP
5. W

   KENT
6. W

   M-OH
7. L

   WMU
8. W

   BALL
9. L

   BUF
10. L

    TOL
11. L

    BGSU
12. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2016

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−0.43
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.15

Game by game

• VMIW 47-24 vs VMI96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• WISL 10-54 at WIS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• MRSHW 65-38 at MRSH12% → 100%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +88: Scoreboard +75, Possession & field position −1
• APPL 38-45 vs APP30% → 4%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• KENTW 31-27 at KENT63% → 85%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position +2
• M-OHW 35-13 vs M-OH65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• WMUL 0-41 vs WMU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −27
• BALLW 35-25 at BALL39% → 96%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• BUFL 20-41 at BUF84% → 1%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −58, Timeouts −1
• TOLL 17-48 vs TOL28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• BGSUL 28-38 vs BGSU79% → 4%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −60, Clock −4
• OHIOL 3-9 at OHIO31% → 5%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1

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.