Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.141st
  Defense+0.1729th
• 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.
  Offense31.4%1st
  Defense49.1%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2981st
  Defense+1.0299th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.291st
  Defense+0.1037th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.078th
  Defense+0.2819th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.1%1st
  Defense53.1%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.8%1st
  Defense38.2%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.011st
  Defense3.1022nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense29.5%1st
  Defense16.5%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense29.5%1st
  Defense14.0%2nd

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, 2019

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
   ILL
2. L
   UAB
3. L
   CMU
4. L
   TROY
5. L
   MASS
6. L
   KENT
7. L
   BUF
8. L
   NIU
9. L
   BGSU
10. L
    EMU
11. L
    M-OH
12. L
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2019

1. Kato NelsonQB305 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 96th of 228 QBs
   0.79WAR0.26 to 1.30
2. Zach GibsonQB68 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 196th of 228 QBs
   0.14WAR0.03 to 0.24
3. Nate StewartWR48 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 141st of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
4. Jonah WielandP63 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 17th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.21
5. Brandon LeeWR51 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 219th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.15
6. Boogie KnightWR36 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 255th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Deltron SandsRB25 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 281st of 349 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Julian HicksWR34 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 355th of 439 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  313313124th of 130Roster talent: 313, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  103103128th of 130Recruiting: 103, 128th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  87%87%7th of 130Returning production: 87%, 7th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −29.8−29.8129th of 130SP+ rating: −29.8, 129th of 130 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, 2019

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 0.05 of the 0.09 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 CMUQ3 13:32 4th & 1 at AKR 40, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs TROYQ3 10:03 4th & 9 at TROY 9, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
3. vs KENTQ2 5:44 4th & 3 at KENT 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at CMUQ4 15:00 4th & 11 at AKR 48, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at NIUQ1 0:12 4th & 1 at AKR 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs UABQ2 4:05 4th & 4 at AKR 48, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs BUFQ2 2:55 4th & 4 at BUF 13, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at ILLQ2 14:56 4th & 4 at AKR 49, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

128th 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

   ILL
2. L

   UAB
3. L

   CMU
4. L

   TROY
5. L

   MASS
6. L

   KENT
7. L

   BUF
8. L

   NIU
9. L

   BGSU
10. L

    EMU
11. L

    M-OH
12. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2019

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−3.12
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.52

Game by game

• ILLL 3-42 at ILL13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −15
• UABL 20-31 vs UAB33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• CMUL 24-45 at CMU49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position −1
• TROYL 7-35 vs TROY12% → 12%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −24
• MASSL 29-37 at MASS79% → 3%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −3
• KENTL 3-26 vs KENT18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• BUFL 0-21 vs BUF16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• NIUL 0-49 at NIU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• BGSUL 6-35 at BGSU46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −44
• EMUL 14-42 vs EMU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• M-OHL 17-20 at M-OH6% → 5%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• OHIOL 3-52 vs OHIO6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10

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.