App State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2491st
  Defense+0.0279th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%51st
  Defense37.2%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3595th
  Defense+1.362nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1990th
  Defense−0.0274th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3182nd
  Defense+0.0583rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%46th
  Defense40.4%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%67th
  Defense31.6%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9960th
  Defense2.4194th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%68th
  Defense20.8%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%78th
  Defense20.3%53rd

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, 2019

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
   ETSU
2. W
   CLT
3. W
   UNC
4. W
   CCU
5. W
   UL
6. W
   ULM
7. W
   USA
8. L
   GASO
9. W
   SC
10. W
    GAST
11. W
    TXST
12. W
    TROY
13. W
    UL
14. W
    UAB

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

Players, 2019

1. Zac ThomasQB372 plays · +0.284 pts/play · 17th of 228 QBs
   1.98WAR1.32 to 2.57
2. Darrynton EvansRB220 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 24th of 349 RBs
   0.71WAR0.50 to 0.91
3. Marcus Williams Jr.RB79 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 161st of 349 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.33
4. Thomas HenniganWR73 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 86th of 439 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.27
5. Malik WilliamsWR66 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 109th of 439 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. Corey SuttonWR49 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 121st of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
7. Xavier SubotschP52 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 21st of 100 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Jalen VirgilWR34 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 228th of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  412412101st of 130Roster talent: 412, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122110th of 130Recruiting: 122, 110th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%15th of 130Returning production: 83%, 15th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.3+11.327th of 130SP+ rating: +11.3, 27th of 130 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.11 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 SCQ2 6:46 4th & 1 at APP 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at UNCQ3 11:18 4th & 4 at UNC 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at GASTQ3 11:28 4th & 1 at APP 31, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at ULQ2 4:03 4th & 2 at APP 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at UNCQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at APP 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at USAQ3 13:24 4th & 3 at USA 43, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs CLTQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at CLT 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs ULQ3 12:32 4th & 3 at APP 29, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

7th 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. W

   ETSU
2. W

   CLT
3. W

   UNC
4. W

   CCU
5. W

   UL
6. W

   ULM
7. W

   USA
8. L

   GASO
9. W

   SC
10. W

    GAST
11. W

    TXST
12. W

    TROY
13. W

    UL
14. W

    UAB

What moved it, 2019

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+2.71
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.75

Game by game

• ETSUW 42-7 vs ETSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• CLTW 56-41 vs CLT93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• UNCW 34-31 at UNC42% → 82%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• CCUW 56-37 vs CCU86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• ULW 17-7 at UL42% → 96%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +52, Clock +4
• ULMW 52-7 vs ULM86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• USAW 30-3 at USA96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• GASOL 21-24 vs GASO84% → 18%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• SCW 20-15 at SC30% → 86%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +46, Clock +4
• GASTW 56-27 at GAST84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• TXSTW 35-13 vs TXST97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• TROYW 48-13 at TROY78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• ULW 45-38 vs UL64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• UABW 31-17 at UAB88% → 98%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1

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.