App State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0629th
  Defense+0.1241st
• 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.
  Offense42.0%47th
  Defense45.2%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1614th
  Defense+1.1683rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0644th
  Defense+0.0558th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1440th
  Defense+0.2333rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%36th
  Defense50.9%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%74th
  Defense32.7%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0359th
  Defense2.8656th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.9%79th
  Defense17.6%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%30th
  Defense16.5%62nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. W
   LIN
3. L
   USM
4. L
   BOIS
5. W
   ORST
6. W
   GAST
7. L
   CCU
8. L
   ODU
9. L
   GASO
10. L
    JMU
11. W
    MRSH
12. L
    ARST
13. L
    GASO

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

Players, 2025

1. JJ KohlQB223 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 93rd of 231 QBs
   0.83WAR0.41 to 1.26
2. Rashod DubinionRB169 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 51st of 365 RBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.38
3. Jaquari LewisRB149 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 57th of 365 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.35
4. AJ SwannQB153 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 164th of 231 QBs
   0.22WAR−0.15 to 0.55
5. Davion DozierWR42 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 111th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.26
6. Dalton StromanWR47 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 123rd of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
7. Jaden BarnesWR65 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 165th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR−0.04 to 0.27
8. Izayah CummingsTE35 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 27th of 213 TEs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61161179th of 134Roster talent: 611, 79th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714786th of 134Recruiting: 147, 86th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%111th of 132Returning production: 14%, 111th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.4−11.4109th of 134SP+ rating: −11.4, 109th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.12 of the 0.18 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 MRSHQ4 9:09 4th & 1 at APP 29, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
2. vs ORSTQ4 8:39 4th & 1 at APP 29, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. vs MRSHQ3 3:05 4th & 1 at APP 34, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. vs GASOQ4 7:18 4th & 14 at GASO 45, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
5. vs MRSHQ2 6:30 4th & 1 at APP 34, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at ODUQ2 7:03 4th & 1 at APP 33, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs ARSTQ2 6:32 4th & 3 at ARST 25, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at ODUQ3 3:29 4th & 1 at APP 24, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

103rd of 136 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. W

   LIN
3. L

   USM
4. L

   BOIS
5. W

   ORST
6. W

   GAST
7. L

   CCU
8. L

   ODU
9. L

   GASO
10. L

    JMU
11. W

    MRSH
12. L

    ARST
13. L

    GASO

What moved it, 2025

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−1.10
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Timeouts−0.16
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.30

Game by game

• CLTW 34-11 at CLT78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +8
• LINW 20-13 vs LIN96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +9
• USML 22-38 at USM59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock +2
• BOISL 14-47 at BOIS11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• ORSTW 27-23 vs ORST51% → 84%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −20
• GASTW 41-20 at GAST52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• CCUL 37-45 vs CCU75% → 2%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• ODUL 21-24 at ODU17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• GASOL 23-25 vs GASO57% → 7%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• JMUL 10-58 at JMU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• MRSHW 26-24 vs MRSH43% → 95%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• ARSTL 29-30 vs ARST41% → 22%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −7
• GASOL 10-29 vs GASO21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −30, 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.