Arkansas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1155th
  Defense+0.0175th
• 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.
  Offense46.2%79th
  Defense37.8%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2153rd
  Defense+1.3115th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0231st
  Defense−0.0378th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2060th
  Defense+0.0767th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.4%80th
  Defense42.8%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.2%76th
  Defense28.8%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6927th
  Defense2.3991st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%57th
  Defense23.9%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%53rd
  Defense21.2%94th

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, 2017

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 Arkansas 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
   NEB
2. W
   UAPB
3. L
   SMU
4. W
   GASO
5. W
   CCU
6. W
   UL
7. W
   NMSU
8. L
   USA
9. W
   TXST
10. W
    ULM
11. L
    TROY
12. L
    MTSU

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

Players, 2017

1. Justice HansenQB509 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 21st of 226 QBs
   1.85WAR1.08 to 2.78
2. Warren WandRB134 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 109th of 352 RBs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.40
3. Johnston WhiteRB89 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 148th of 352 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.28
4. Justin McInnisWR59 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 53rd of 426 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.22
5. Chris MurrayWR72 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 102nd of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.22
6. Sawyer WilliamsPK15 plays · +0.390 pts/play · 53rd of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
7. Kendrick EdwardsWR43 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 231st of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Dijon PaschalWR29 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 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 Arkansas 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43643679th of 130Roster talent: 436, 79th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12312393rd of 130Recruiting: 123, 93rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%22nd of 128Returning production: 82%, 22nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.5+1.566th of 128SP+ rating: +1.5, 66th of 128 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, 2017

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 Arkansas State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 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 MTSUQ4 14:54 4th & 14 at MTSU 34, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
2. at SMUQ2 4:53 4th & 13 at SMU 37, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs CCUQ2 0:08 4th & 3 at CCU 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs MTSUQ2 9:07 4th & 6 at MTSU 41, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs TXSTQ2 4:15 4th & 3 at TXST 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at ULMQ2 0:16 4th & 8 at ULM 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs CCUQ3 8:47 4th & 4 at CCU 4, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at USAQ2 7:17 4th & 4 at ARST 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

106th of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Arkansas State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   NEB
2. W

   UAPB
3. L

   SMU
4. W

   GASO
5. W

   CCU
6. W

   UL
7. W

   NMSU
8. L

   USA
9. W

   TXST
10. W

    ULM
11. L

    TROY
12. L

    MTSU

What moved it, 2017

Every game starts at Arkansas 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−0.25
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.50

Game by game

• NEBL 36-43 at NEB18% → 15%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position +3
• UAPBW 48-3 vs UAPB100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SMUL 21-44 at SMU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• GASOW 43-25 at GASO78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +32, Clock +1
• CCUW 51-17 vs CCU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +16
• ULW 47-3 vs UL84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• NMSUW 37-21 at NMSU59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• USAL 19-24 at USA81% → 7%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• TXSTW 30-12 vs TXST95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts −1
• ULMW 67-50 at ULM71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• TROYL 25-32 vs TROY50% → 12%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• MTSUL 30-35 vs MTSU60% → 9%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Arkansas State's side.

Closest call

ARST 30-29 APP (2025) - Arkansas State dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.