App State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1982nd
  Defense+0.0178th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%52nd
  Defense39.9%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3695th
  Defense+1.1470th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1376th
  Defense+0.0261st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2983rd
  Defense+0.0187th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%30th
  Defense43.4%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.8%85th
  Defense33.3%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9866th
  Defense2.7959th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%50th
  Defense20.8%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%67th
  Defense20.3%90th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   UGA
2. W
   SAV
3. W
   TXST
4. L
   WAKE
5. W
   NMSU
6. W
   IDHO
7. W
   CCU
8. L
   MASS
9. L
   ULM
10. W
    GASO
11. W
    GAST
12. W
    UL
13. W
    TOL

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

Players, 2017

1. Taylor LambQB321 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 35th of 226 QBs
   1.61WAR1.09 to 2.15
2. Jalin MooreRB151 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 55th of 352 RBs
   0.40WAR0.24 to 0.54
3. Ike LewisWR59 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 127th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19
4. Thomas HenniganWR51 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 134th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
5. Michael RubinoPK12 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 93rd of 110 kickers
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.10
6. Malik WilliamsWR37 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 359th of 426 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.08
7. Levi DuffieldTE6 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01
8. Collin ReedTE4 plays · +0.032 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 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 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  336336105th of 130Roster talent: 336, 105th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  115115109th of 130Recruiting: 115, 109th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%42nd of 128Returning production: 70%, 42nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.8+3.858th of 128SP+ rating: +3.8, 58th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.16 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 MASSQ4 4:42 4th & 2 at MASS 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. at MASSQ4 1:57 4th & 8 at MASS 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. at TOLQ2 5:52 4th & 2 at TOL 6, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at MASSQ3 5:06 4th & 2 at MASS 22, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at TOLQ2 8:09 4th & 2 at TOL 12, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs WAKEQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at APP 47, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs NMSUQ3 7:25 4th & 2 at APP 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at MASSQ2 5:20 4th & 7 at MASS 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

61st of 130 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. L

   UGA
2. W

   SAV
3. W

   TXST
4. L

   WAKE
5. W

   NMSU
6. W

   IDHO
7. W

   CCU
8. L

   MASS
9. L

   ULM
10. W

    GASO
11. W

    GAST
12. W

    UL
13. W

    TOL

What moved it, 2017

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+1.04
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.06

Game by game

• UGAL 10-31 at UGA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• SAVW 54-7 vs SAV100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TXSTW 20-13 at TXST92% → 79%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −14: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −2
• WAKEL 19-20 vs WAKE30% → 8%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• NMSUW 45-31 vs NMSU81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• IDHOW 23-20 at IDHO78% → 93%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• CCUW 37-29 vs CCU90% → 97%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• MASSL 27-30 at MASS58% → 22%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +25
• ULML 45-52 at ULM69% → 14%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +3
• GASOW 27-6 vs GASO90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position −1
• GASTW 31-10 at GAST65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• ULW 63-14 vs UL86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• TOLW 34-0 at TOL33% → 100%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +63, Clock +2

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.