Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0115th
  Defense+0.0470th
• 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.
  Offense38.4%17th
  Defense39.2%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2453rd
  Defense+1.2933rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0314th
  Defense−0.0282nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1026th
  Defense+0.1750th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.1%17th
  Defense45.2%65th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.7%30th
  Defense25.2%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8028th
  Defense2.7567th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%25th
  Defense22.5%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%17th
  Defense17.3%76th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   WYO
2. L
   NEB
3. L
   UAB
4. W
   DUQ
5. L
   TOL
6. W
   CMU
7. L
   M-OH
8. L
   BALL
9. W
   BUF
10. W
    MASS
11. L
    KENT
12. W
    BGSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2025

1. Ben FinleyQB348 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 134th of 231 QBs
   0.45WAR−0.20 to 1.11
2. Jordan GantRB181 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 30th of 365 RBs
   0.34WAR0.25 to 0.44
3. Marcel WilliamsWR63 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 44th of 451 WRs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.35
4. Kyan MasonWR35 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 149th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.21
5. Israel PolkWR50 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 242nd of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.19
6. Sean PatrickRB11 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 288th of 365 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
7. Conner CravaackTE24 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 155th of 213 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.07
8. Jacob NewellTE9 plays · −0.089 pts/play · 213th of 213 TEs
   −0.01WAR−0.04 to 0.01

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  537537104th of 134Roster talent: 537, 104th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  109109122nd of 134Recruiting: 109, 122nd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%62nd of 132Returning production: 37%, 62nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.9−13.9115th of 134SP+ rating: −13.9, 115th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 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 BALLQ4 5:47 4th & 1 at BALL 1, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−7.1 pts
2. vs KENTQ4 7:12 4th & 2 at KENT 2, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
3. vs KENTQ4 0:05 4th & 15 at midfield, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−3.5 pts
4. at BALLQ3 9:00 4th & 2 at AKR 38, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs MASSQ4 12:18 4th & 1 at AKR 43, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs CMUQ4 4:12 4th & 6 at CMU 39, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at BUFQ4 2:36 4th & 8 at BUF 40, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs KENTQ3 11:30 4th & 3 at KENT 23, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

57th of 136 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

   WYO
2. L

   NEB
3. L

   UAB
4. W

   DUQ
5. L

   TOL
6. W

   CMU
7. L

   M-OH
8. L

   BALL
9. W

   BUF
10. W

    MASS
11. L

    KENT
12. W

    BGSU

What moved it, 2025

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+0.46
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.87
• Other−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.57

Game by game

• WYOL 0-10 vs WYO28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −12
• NEBL 0-68 at NEB2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• UABL 28-31 at UAB18% → 4%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2
• DUQW 51-7 vs DUQ79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −5
• TOLL 3-45 at TOL6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• CMUW 28-22 vs CMU32% → 72%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +59, Timeouts −44
• M-OHL 7-20 vs M-OH22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• BALLL 28-42 at BALL55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −53, Clock +2
• BUFW 24-16 at BUF19% → 97%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +60, Clock +4
• MASSW 44-10 vs MASS82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• KENTL 35-42 vs KENT69% → 13%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −20
• BGSUW 19-16 at BGSU44% → 89%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +50, 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.