Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.062nd
  Defense+0.0672nd
• 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.
  Offense36.4%8th
  Defense39.4%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1615th
  Defense+1.3323rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0740th
  Defense+0.0848th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.015th
  Defense+0.1383rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.9%8th
  Defense44.5%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.4%11th
  Defense30.1%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.749th
  Defense2.9271st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.7%73rd
  Defense16.8%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.1%22nd
  Defense14.4%13th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TEM
2. W
   MORG
3. L
   UK
4. L
   IU
5. L
   BUF
6. L
   NIU
7. L
   CMU
8. L
   BGSU
9. W
   KENT
10. L
    M-OH
11. L
    EMU
12. L
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2023

1. Jeff Undercuffler Jr.QB149 plays · +0.294 pts/play · 103rd of 250 QBs
   0.82WAR0.44 to 1.21
2. DJ IronsQB153 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 135th of 250 QBs
   0.44WAR0.11 to 0.76
3. Tahj BullockQB106 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 137th of 250 QBs
   0.44WAR0.21 to 0.71
4. Lorenzo LingardRB148 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 43rd of 383 RBs
   0.38WAR0.24 to 0.53
5. Dante JacksonPK59 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 20th of 113 kickers
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
6. Alex AdamsWR21 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 169th of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
7. Jasaiah GathingsWR61 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 192nd of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.03 to 0.21
8. TJ BanksTE14 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 130th of 212 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  445445102nd of 130Roster talent: 445, 102nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111119th of 130Recruiting: 111, 119th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%26th of 128Returning production: 73%, 26th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.6−21.6127th of 130SP+ rating: −21.6, 127th 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, 2023

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 0.18 of the 0.23 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 EMUQ4 2:31 4th & 11 at EMU 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−6.1 pts
2. at EMUQ4 8:00 4th & 2 at EMU 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
3. vs BUFQ3 11:31 4th & 1 at AKR 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs NIUQ4 0:06 4th & 6 at NIU 20, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
5. vs NIUQ4 4:19 4th & 1 at AKR 33, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at IUQ4 13:13 4th & 2 at AKR 28, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at CMUQ4 8:24 4th & 6 at AKR 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs OHIOQ3 6:25 4th & 3 at AKR 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

129th of 133 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

   TEM
2. W

   MORG
3. L

   UK
4. L

   IU
5. L

   BUF
6. L

   NIU
7. L

   CMU
8. L

   BGSU
9. W

   KENT
10. L

    M-OH
11. L

    EMU
12. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2023

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−0.83
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.21
• Timeouts−0.29
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.49

Game by game

• TEML 21-24 at TEM23% → 4%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• MORGW 24-21 vs MORG94% → 82%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −12: Scoreboard +8, Possession & field position +1
• UKL 3-35 at UK6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• IUL 27-29 at IU15% → 53%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +10, Clock +2
• BUFL 10-13 vs BUF57% → 24%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −20
• NIUL 14-55 vs NIU39% → 91%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −3
• CMUL 10-17 at CMU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• BGSUL 14-41 at BGSU36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −36
• KENTW 31-27 vs KENT69% → 81%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +3
• M-OHL 0-19 at M-OH13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• EMUL 27-30 at EMU40% → 47%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts −4
• OHIOL 14-25 vs OHIO15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −24, Clock −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.