Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0318th
  Defense+0.2111th
• 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.
  Offense41.7%47th
  Defense42.7%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1620th
  Defense+1.3513th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.114th
  Defense+0.1130th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1835th
  Defense+0.406th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%48th
  Defense48.4%38th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%39th
  Defense30.1%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0342nd
  Defense3.0451st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%42nd
  Defense18.4%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.4%3rd
  Defense15.1%36th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   SFPA
2. L
   MSU
3. L
   TENN
4. L
   LIB
5. L
   BGSU
6. L
   OHIO
7. L
   CMU
8. L
   KENT
9. L
   M-OH
10. L
    EMU
11. W
    NIU
12. L
    BUF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2022

1. DJ IronsQB291 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 99th of 234 QBs
   0.77WAR0.25 to 1.34
2. Jeff Undercuffler Jr.QB100 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 125th of 234 QBs
   0.49WAR0.25 to 0.72
3. Alex AdamsWR41 plays · +0.314 pts/play · 36th of 455 WRs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.32
4. Cam WileyRB53 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 244th of 384 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
5. Shocky Jacques-LouisWR40 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 273rd of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
6. Daniel GeorgeWR41 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 344th of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.10
7. Clyde Price IIIRB16 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 326th of 384 RBs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.05
8. Tristian BrankTE7 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 169th of 214 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45645694th of 129Roster talent: 456, 94th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114120th of 129Recruiting: 114, 120th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  20%20%121st of 128Returning production: 20%, 121st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −23.4−23.4125th of 129SP+ rating: −23.4, 125th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.10 of the 0.16 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 SFPAQ4 12:38 4th & 1 at AKR 29, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. vs SFPAQ4 0:00 4th & 12 at AKR 28, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
3. vs BGSUQ3 0:13 4th & 2 at AKR 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs M-OHQ2 7:40 4th & 1 at AKR 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at KENTQ2 7:36 4th & 2 at KENT 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at KENTQ2 10:52 4th & 2 at KENT 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs SFPAQ2 0:15 4th & 8 at SFPA 42, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs BGSUQ1 3:29 4th & 11 at BGSU 11, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

78th of 131 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

   SFPA
2. L

   MSU
3. L

   TENN
4. L

   LIB
5. L

   BGSU
6. L

   OHIO
7. L

   CMU
8. L

   KENT
9. L

   M-OH
10. L

    EMU
11. W

    NIU
12. L

    BUF

What moved it, 2022

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−0.86
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.36

Game by game

• SFPAW 30-23 vs SFPA69% → 51%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −10, Clock −2
• MSUL 0-52 at MSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• TENNL 6-63 at TENN0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −2
• LIBL 12-21 at LIB5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −10
• BGSUL 28-31 vs BGSU20% → 12%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• OHIOL 34-55 at OHIO25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Clock +1
• CMUL 21-28 vs CMU16% → 33%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +17: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position +2
• KENTL 27-33 at KENT13% → 3%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18
• M-OHL 9-27 vs M-OH22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• EMUL 28-34 vs EMU32% → 8%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• NIUW 44-12 at NIU19% → 100%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +69, Clock +2
• BUFL 22-23 at BUF19% → 82%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +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.