Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0221st
  Defense+0.1144th
• 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.
  Offense37.4%5th
  Defense47.9%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2679th
  Defense+1.1278th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0514th
  Defense+0.1713th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0832nd
  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.
  Offense42.5%9th
  Defense52.8%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.1%15th
  Defense36.3%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.435th
  Defense3.1817th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.8%13th
  Defense18.0%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%21st
  Defense14.2%19th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   PSU
2. W
   UAPB
3. L
   ISU
4. L
   TROY
5. W
   BGSU
6. W
   BALL
7. W
   WMU
8. L
   TOL
9. W
   BUF
10. L
    M-OH
11. W
    OHIO
12. W
    KENT
13. L
    TOL
14. L
    FAU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2017

1. Thomas WoodsonQB241 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 88th of 226 QBs
   0.88WAR0.43 to 1.31
2. Kato NelsonQB171 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 119th of 226 QBs
   0.51WAR0.20 to 0.81
3. Manny MorganRB106 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 161st of 352 RBs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.28
4. Van Edwards Jr.RB61 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 212th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Kwadarrius SmithWR33 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 190th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. A.J. ConeyWR50 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Austin WolfWR46 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 326th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.10
8. Tom O'LearyPK6 plays · +0.363 pts/play · 98th of 110 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  337337104th of 130Roster talent: 337, 104th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8888127th of 130Recruiting: 88, 127th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%68th of 128Returning production: 60%, 68th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.6−17.6119th of 128SP+ rating: −17.6, 119th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.13 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 TROYQ4 3:23 4th & 2 at AKR 41, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. at WMUQ3 13:50 4th & 1 at AKR 39, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs OHIOQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at AKR 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs ISUQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at AKR 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at TOLQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at AKR 34, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at BGSUQ3 13:07 4th & 3 at AKR 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs OHIOQ2 3:55 4th & 9 at OHIO 39, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at FAUQ2 11:14 4th & 2 at FAU 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

4th of 130 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

   PSU
2. W

   UAPB
3. L

   ISU
4. L

   TROY
5. W

   BGSU
6. W

   BALL
7. W

   WMU
8. L

   TOL
9. W

   BUF
10. L

    M-OH
11. W

    OHIO
12. W

    KENT
13. L

    TOL
14. L

    FAU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.95

Game by game

• PSUL 0-52 at PSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• UAPBW 52-3 vs UAPB100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ISUL 14-41 vs ISU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• TROYL 17-22 at TROY10% → 5%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −17
• BGSUW 34-23 at BGSU55% → 97%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• BALLW 31-3 vs BALL59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts −1
• WMUW 14-13 at WMU21% → 75%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +32, Clock +5
• TOLL 21-48 at TOL13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• BUFW 21-20 vs BUF44% → 80%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +3
• M-OHL 14-24 at M-OH19% → 3%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23
• OHIOW 37-34 vs OHIO18% → 95%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• KENTW 24-14 vs KENT82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +22
• TOLL 28-45 at TOL8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• FAUL 3-50 at FAU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8

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.