App State

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+0.0622nd
  Defense+0.0368th
• 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.
  Offense39.0%18th
  Defense40.4%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2862nd
  Defense+1.0496th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.095th
  Defense+0.0839th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2758th
  Defense+0.0184th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.3%9th
  Defense47.6%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.
  Offense33.3%59th
  Defense23.4%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.424th
  Defense2.7664th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.7%5th
  Defense21.9%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%37th
  Defense18.5%80th

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 App State 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
   ME
2. W
   ECU
3. W
   CLT
4. L
   NCSU
5. L
   ODU

Bars above the line: better than expected for App State.

Players, 2026

1. Malachi SingletonQB146 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 48th of 192 QBs
   0.35WAR0.14 to 0.55
2. Jaquari LewisRB50 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 85th of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
3. Sam Pickett IIIWR27 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 65th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
4. Darrin FugittTE21 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 36th of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06
5. Henry HasselbeckQB17 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 181st of 192 QBs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
6. Sam MbakeWR1 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 341st of 364 WRs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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 App State'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.
  62262285th of 138Roster talent: 622, 85th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016085th of 138Recruiting: 160, 85th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  38%38%73rd of 136Returning production: 38%, 73rd 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.
  −6.0−6.097th of 138SP+ rating so far: −6.0, 97th 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 App State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.03 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 NCSUQ4 0:45 4th & 1 at NCSU 24, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at ECUQ3 3:57 4th & 4 at ECU 19, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs CLTQ2 1:46 4th & 2 at APP 25, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at ECUQ1 0:44 4th & 4 at ECU 23, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs ODUQ3 11:41 4th & 4 at ODU 16, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at ECUQ3 7:09 4th & 10 at ECU 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs MEQ4 2:12 4th & 2 at ME 14, up 49Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs CLTQ4 4:21 4th & 10 at CLT 43, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

76th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up App State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   ME
2. W

   ECU
3. W

   CLT
4. L

   NCSU
5. L

   ODU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at App State'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+0.03
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.14

Game by game

• MEW 55-3 vs ME91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• ECUW 27-24 at ECU36% → 95%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• CLTW 26-21 vs CLT85% → 96%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +2
• NCSUL 31-41 at NCSU18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• ODUL 3-10 vs ODU75% → 6%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from App State's side.

Closest call

MRSH 9-31 APP (2023) - App State dropped to a 4.5% win probability before pulling it out.