Akron

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0623rd
  Defense+0.2510th
• 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.
  Offense40.9%31st
  Defense44.9%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.109th
  Defense+1.3128th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0942nd
  Defense+0.1231st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0922nd
  Defense+0.447th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%38th
  Defense49.1%27th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.6%29th
  Defense35.6%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5191st
  Defense3.1824th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.2%63rd
  Defense17.0%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.0%7th
  Defense12.9%15th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   WAKE
2. W
   RMU
3. L
   MINN
4. L
   UNLV
5. L
   CMU
6. L
   EMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Akron.

Players, 2026

1. Jordan GantRB61 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 39th of 320 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
2. Brayden RoggowQB77 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 141st of 192 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.02 to 0.19
3. Marcel WilliamsWR22 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 86th of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
4. Sean PatrickRB30 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 191st of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
5. Cibastian BroughtonQB27 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 168th of 192 QBs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
6. Kyan MasonWR18 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 211th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
7. Miles BurrisWR13 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
8. Matthew SchrammPK5 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 61st of 82 kickers
   0.02WAR0.00 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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  547547121st of 138Roster talent: 547, 121st of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  126126123rd of 138Recruiting: 126, 123rd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  92%92%5th of 136Returning production: 92%, 5th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −22.4−22.4131st of 138SP+ rating so far: −22.4, 131st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.02 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 EMUQ2 1:43 4th & 9 at EMU 40, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
2. vs UNLVQ3 12:00 4th & 3 at AKR 29, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
3. vs EMUQ2 3:02 4th & 2 at AKR 33, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at CMUQ1 2:16 4th & 3 at AKR 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. at CMUQ3 7:43 4th & 4 at CMU 11, down 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at CMUQ1 5:37 4th & 4 at CMU 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at CMUQ1 5:29 4th & 4 at CMU 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at WAKEQ2 1:35 4th & 4 at WAKE 10, down 28Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

123rd of 138 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

   WAKE
2. W

   RMU
3. L

   MINN
4. L

   UNLV
5. L

   CMU
6. L

   EMU

What moved it, 2026

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−1.19
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• WAKEL 16-38 at WAKE6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• RMUW 45-10 vs RMU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• MINNL 7-41 at MINN7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• UNLVL 10-38 vs UNLV22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• CMUL 17-41 at CMU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −37, Clock +2
• EMUL 23-25 vs EMU38% → 7%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −43, 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.