App State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2078th
  Defense+0.1337th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%72nd
  Defense41.4%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2866th
  Defense+1.2738th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2188th
  Defense+0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2558th
  Defense+0.3118th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.5%78th
  Defense46.4%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.3%42nd
  Defense31.3%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3787th
  Defense2.9565th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.0%93rd
  Defense16.4%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.8%97th
  Defense16.8%59th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   UNC
2. W
   TA&M
3. W
   TROY
4. L
   JMU
5. W
   CIT
6. L
   TXST
7. W
   GAST
8. W
   RMU
9. L
   CCU
10. L
    MRSH
11. W
    ODU
12. L
    GASO

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

Players, 2022

1. Chase BriceQB331 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 52nd of 234 QBs
   1.38WAR0.78 to 2.02
2. Camerun PeoplesRB102 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 114th of 384 RBs
   0.26WAR0.14 to 0.36
3. Nate NoelRB98 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 135th of 384 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.31
4. Daetrich HarringtonRB70 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 168th of 384 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.24
5. Ahmani MarshallRB54 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 223rd of 384 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Kaedin RobinsonWR32 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 218th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Henry PearsonTE26 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 39th of 214 TEs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Christan HornWR31 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 227th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45745793rd of 129Roster talent: 457, 93rd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15015081st of 129Recruiting: 150, 81st of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%71st of 128Returning production: 56%, 71st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.7+1.764th of 129SP+ rating: +1.7, 64th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.30 of the 0.34 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 TA&MQ4 0:00 4th & 27 at TA&M 29, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−12.1 pts
2. vs TROYQ4 0:00 4th & 10 at APP 47, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−4.3 pts
3. vs TROYQ4 4:00 4th & 3 at TROY 9, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.4 pts
4. vs TROYQ3 8:01 4th & 1 at APP 19, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
5. vs TROYQ3 0:29 4th & 2 at TROY 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
6. at GASOQ3 12:09 4th & 2 at GASO 7, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at MRSHQ3 4:42 4th & 15 at MRSH 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
8. at TXSTQ2 12:26 4th & 1 at APP 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

128th of 131 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

   UNC
2. W

   TA&M
3. W

   TROY
4. L

   JMU
5. W

   CIT
6. L

   TXST
7. W

   GAST
8. W

   RMU
9. L

   CCU
10. L

    MRSH
11. W

    ODU
12. L

    GASO

What moved it, 2022

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−0.97
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.21
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.86

Game by game

• UNCL 61-63 vs UNC56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• TA&MW 17-14 at TA&M9% → 94%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• TROYW 32-28 vs TROY85% → 95%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• JMUL 28-32 vs JMU71% → 5%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• CITW 49-0 vs CIT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TXSTL 24-36 at TXST92% → 3%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −46, Possession & field position +2
• GASTW 42-17 vs GAST75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27
• RMUW 42-3 vs RMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• CCUL 28-35 at CCU58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3
• MRSHL 21-28 at MRSH55% → 2%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −44
• ODUW 27-14 vs ODU85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• GASOL 48-51 at GASO69% → 58%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −11: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +20

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.