App State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2076th
  Defense+0.0285th
• 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.
  Offense46.9%82nd
  Defense36.4%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2339th
  Defense+1.3910th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2190th
  Defense+0.1521st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1956th
  Defense−0.1198th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.8%83rd
  Defense41.2%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%56th
  Defense28.2%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2182nd
  Defense2.9151st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%75th
  Defense20.0%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%87th
  Defense20.1%94th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   CLT
2. L
   MRSH
3. W
   CAM
4. W
   ARST
5. W
   ULM
6. W
   TXST
7. W
   GAST
8. L
   CCU
9. W
   TROY
10. L
    UL
11. W
    GASO
12. W
    UNT

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

Players, 2020

1. Zac ThomasQB298 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 29th of 212 QBs
   0.88WAR0.33 to 1.44
2. Camerun PeoplesRB136 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 15th of 338 RBs
   0.59WAR0.44 to 0.76
3. Daetrich HarringtonRB57 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 156th of 338 RBs
   0.21WAR0.17 to 0.25
4. Marcus Williams Jr.RB56 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 161st of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.26
5. Nate NoelRB50 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 193rd of 338 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
6. Thomas HenniganWR51 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 60th of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
7. Malik WilliamsWR47 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 102nd of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Jalen VirgilWR33 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 227th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  383383101st of 127Roster talent: 383, 101st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  133133103rd of 127Recruiting: 133, 103rd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%24th of 127Returning production: 80%, 24th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.3+10.328th of 127SP+ rating: +10.3, 28th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.06 of the 0.07 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 GASTQ4 11:40 4th & 2 at APP 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at GASOQ4 2:44 4th & 2 at GASO 20, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at GASOQ4 12:39 4th & 6 at GASO 33, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs TROYQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at APP 34, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at GASOQ4 8:15 4th & 4 at APP 44, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs ULQ4 2:09 4th & 9 at UL 23, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs GASTQ1 2:53 4th & 4 at GAST 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at MRSHQ4 2:54 4th & 6 at MRSH 9, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

89th of 127 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

   CLT
2. L

   MRSH
3. W

   CAM
4. W

   ARST
5. W

   ULM
6. W

   TXST
7. W

   GAST
8. L

   CCU
9. W

   TROY
10. L

    UL
11. W

    GASO
12. W

    UNT

What moved it, 2020

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+0.23
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.82

Game by game

• CLTW 35-20 vs CLT86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• MRSHL 7-17 at MRSH66% → 4%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• CAMW 52-21 vs CAM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• ARSTW 45-17 vs ARST82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• ULMW 31-13 at ULM96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +11
• TXSTW 38-17 at TXST92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14
• GASTW 17-13 vs GAST90% → 91%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +1
• CCUL 23-34 at CCU40% → 2%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• TROYW 47-10 vs TROY83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• ULL 21-24 vs UL57% → 6%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• GASOW 34-26 at GASO73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +37, Clock +3
• UNTW 56-28 at UNT92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13

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.