Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.019th
  Defense+0.1821st
• 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.
  Offense38.8%17th
  Defense44.6%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2748th
  Defense+1.2363rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.066th
  Defense+0.0750th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0723rd
  Defense+0.357th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%32nd
  Defense48.0%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.1%10th
  Defense36.0%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8223rd
  Defense2.9555th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%26th
  Defense19.7%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%38th
  Defense14.3%23rd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   OSU
2. L
   RUTG
3. W
   COLG
4. L
   SC
5. L
   OHIO
6. L
   BGSU
7. L
   WMU
8. W
   EMU
9. L
   BUF
10. L
    NIU
11. W
    KENT
12. W
    TOL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2024

1. Ben FinleyQB307 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 130th of 232 QBs
   0.53WAR−0.09 to 1.24
2. Jordon SimmonsRB92 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 120th of 373 RBs
   0.24WAR0.19 to 0.30
3. Tahj BullockQB47 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 173rd of 232 QBs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.30
4. Adrian NortonWR52 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 54th of 452 WRs
   0.18WAR0.05 to 0.33
5. Charles KellomRB68 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 220th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Avery BookP45 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 30th of 106 punters
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.18
7. Ahmarian GrangerWR21 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 306th of 452 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.03 to 0.07
8. Conner CravaackTE11 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 153rd of 221 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  538538102nd of 131Roster talent: 538, 102nd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  116116116th of 131Recruiting: 116, 116th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%102nd of 130Returning production: 27%, 102nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.9−17.9120th of 131SP+ rating: −17.9, 120th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 2 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 NIUQ4 8:05 4th & 1 at AKR 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. vs TOLQ2 7:58 4th & 1 at AKR 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at WMUQ4 1:02 4th & 5 at WMU 17, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at NIUQ4 0:26 4th & 10 at NIU 20, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at OHIOQ3 1:19 4th & 10 at OHIO 38, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at OHIOQ1 3:34 4th & 2 at AKR 29, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at KENTQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at KENT 10, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at NIUQ4 0:55 4th & 5 at NIU 28, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

54th of 134 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

   OSU
2. L

   RUTG
3. W

   COLG
4. L

   SC
5. L

   OHIO
6. L

   BGSU
7. L

   WMU
8. W

   EMU
9. L

   BUF
10. L

    NIU
11. W

    KENT
12. W

    TOL

What moved it, 2024

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−0.79
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.78

Game by game

• OSUL 6-52 at OSU0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• RUTGL 17-49 at RUTG5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• COLGW 31-20 vs COLG85% → 97%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20
• SCL 7-50 at SC6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• OHIOL 10-30 at OHIO29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• BGSUL 20-27 vs BGSU12% → 10%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• WMUL 24-34 at WMU21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −26
• EMUW 25-21 vs EMU44% → 98%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +45, Possession & field position −2
• BUFL 30-41 vs BUF50% → 5%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −49, Possession & field position −2
• NIUL 16-29 at NIU14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• KENTW 38-17 at KENT72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• TOLW 21-14 vs TOL24% → 43%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +19: Scoreboard −13, Clock −3

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.