App State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1245th
  Defense+0.258th
• 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.
  Offense43.6%56th
  Defense49.0%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3380th
  Defense+1.2361st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0844th
  Defense+0.245th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1751st
  Defense+0.2817th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%41st
  Defense53.9%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.6%90th
  Defense34.8%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0144th
  Defense3.417th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%35th
  Defense14.5%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%54th
  Defense11.6%3rd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. L
   CLEM
3. W
   ECU
4. L
   USA
5. L
   MRSH
6. L
   UL
7. W
   GAST
8. W
   ODU
9. L
   CCU
10. W
    JMU
11. L
    GASO

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

Players, 2024

1. Joey AguilarQB317 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 64th of 232 QBs
   1.37WAR0.90 to 1.92
2. Ahmani MarshallRB136 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 66th of 373 RBs
   0.35WAR0.24 to 0.44
3. Makai JacksonWR40 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 54th of 452 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.27
4. Kanye RobertsRB73 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 212th of 373 RBs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19
5. Kaedin RobinsonWR37 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 113th of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.22
6. Dalton StromanWR18 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 178th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. Eli WilsonTE25 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 36th of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.15
8. Anderson CastleRB41 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 272nd of 373 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57557584th of 131Roster talent: 575, 84th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615681st of 131Recruiting: 156, 81st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%6th of 130Returning production: 88%, 6th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.1−8.198th of 131SP+ rating: −8.1, 98th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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 GASOQ4 10:12 4th & 12 at GASO 21, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
2. at ECUQ2 3:18 4th & 1 at APP 29, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs GASTQ3 13:07 4th & 1 at APP 34, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at CCUQ2 0:07 4th & 10 at CCU 35, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. at MRSHQ3 1:50 4th & 19 at MRSH 27, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
6. at MRSHQ2 0:47 4th & 5 at MRSH 21, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs JMUQ4 10:39 4th & 3 at JMU 23, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs JMUQ1 0:53 4th & 2 at APP 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

93rd of 134 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. L

   CLEM
3. W

   ECU
4. L

   USA
5. L

   MRSH
6. L

   UL
7. W

   GAST
8. W

   ODU
9. L

   CCU
10. W

    JMU
11. L

    GASO

What moved it, 2024

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−0.81
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.05
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• ETSUW 38-10 vs ETSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• CLEML 20-66 at CLEM15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −17
• ECUW 21-19 at ECU54% → 93%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• USAL 14-48 vs USA73% → 0%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −65, Clock −2
• MRSHL 37-52 at MRSH48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −44, Clock +2
• ULL 24-34 at UL27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30
• GASTW 33-26 vs GAST76% → 97%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −4
• ODUW 28-20 vs ODU50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• CCUL 24-38 at CCU61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −2
• JMUW 34-20 vs JMU41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +1
• GASOL 20-29 at GASO48% → 1%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −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.