App State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1980th
  Defense−0.0696th
• 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.
  Offense47.5%85th
  Defense38.5%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2157th
  Defense+1.0694th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0959th
  Defense−0.0282nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3896th
  Defense−0.0696th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.9%95th
  Defense43.2%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%43rd
  Defense29.2%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0980th
  Defense2.7264th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%50th
  Defense20.3%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense2.4%72nd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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
   HOW
2. L
   CLEM
3. W
   ODU
4. W
   WYO
5. W
   GAST
6. W
   ULM
7. W
   GASO
8. W
   TROY
9. L
   ARST
10. W
    IDHO
11. W
    UL
12. W
    USA
13. W
    OHIO

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

Players, 2015

1. Taylor LambQB251 plays · +0.338 pts/play · 52nd of 205 QBs
   1.59WAR1.14 to 2.01
2. Marcus CoxRB191 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 46th of 333 RBs
   0.37WAR0.18 to 0.56
3. Simms McElfreshWR44 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 213th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
4. Malachi JonesWR28 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 254th of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
5. Zach MaticsP10 plays · +0.334 pts/play · 62nd of 92 punters
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
6. Terrence UpshawRB35 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 240th of 333 RBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Bobo BeathardWR14 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 327th of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Bentlee CritcherP35 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 73rd of 92 punters
   0.04WAR−0.04 to 0.10

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  313313120th of 128Roster talent: 313, 120th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11711799th of 128Recruiting: 117, 99th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  95%95%6th of 127Returning production: 95%, 6th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.9+7.949th of 128SP+ rating: +7.9, 49th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 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 WYOQ2 0:24 4th & 5 at WYO 24, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
2. at CLEMQ2 4:55 4th & 3 at APP 45, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
3. vs TROYQ2 1:09 4th & 3 at TROY 12, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. at CLEMQ2 0:00 4th & 21 at APP 46, down 31Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs ARSTQ2 1:49 4th & 2 at APP 21, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs TROYQ1 6:08 4th & 1 at APP 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs GASOQ1 8:35 4th & 4 at GASO 27, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs ARSTQ1 7:01 4th & 6 at APP 29, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

29th of 128 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

   HOW
2. L

   CLEM
3. W

   ODU
4. W

   WYO
5. W

   GAST
6. W

   ULM
7. W

   GASO
8. W

   TROY
9. L

   ARST
10. W

    IDHO
11. W

    UL
12. W

    USA
13. W

    OHIO

What moved it, 2015

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+1.79
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.11
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.93

Game by game

• HOWW 49-0 vs HOW70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30
• CLEML 10-41 at CLEM7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• ODUW 49-0 at ODU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +32, Clock +1
• WYOW 31-13 vs WYO89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position −1
• GASTW 37-3 at GAST88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• ULMW 59-14 at ULM77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +30
• GASOW 31-13 vs GASO68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +1
• TROYW 44-41 vs TROY94% → 83%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts −11
• ARSTL 27-40 vs ARST79% → 1%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3
• IDHOW 47-20 at IDHO92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• ULW 28-7 vs UL93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• USAW 34-27 at USA88% → 95%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• OHIOW 31-29 vs OHIO74% → 95%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27

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.