Arkansas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1664th
  Defense+0.1248th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%43rd
  Defense43.7%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3696th
  Defense+1.2440th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0543rd
  Defense+0.1036th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2669th
  Defense+0.1653rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.4%33rd
  Defense47.8%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.8%69th
  Defense34.3%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9555th
  Defense2.9050th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.9%35th
  Defense17.2%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.8%27th
  Defense16.8%14th

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, 2019

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
   SMU
2. W
   UNLV
3. L
   UGA
4. W
   SIU
5. W
   TROY
6. L
   GAST
7. L
   UL
8. W
   TXST
9. W
   ULM
10. W
    CCU
11. W
    GASO
12. L
    USA
13. W
    FIU

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

Players, 2019

1. Layne HatcherQB371 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 52nd of 228 QBs
   1.31WAR0.74 to 1.94
2. Marcel MurrayRB183 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 63rd of 349 RBs
   0.49WAR0.34 to 0.65
3. Omar BaylessWR102 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 10th of 439 WRs
   0.37WAR0.21 to 0.50
4. Jamal JonesRB75 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 147th of 349 RBs
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.35
5. Logan BonnerQB86 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 165th of 228 QBs
   0.28WAR0.16 to 0.42
6. Kirk MerrittWR79 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 105th of 439 WRs
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.25
7. Blake GrupePK18 plays · +0.445 pts/play · 30th of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
8. Jonathan Adams Jr.WR74 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 129th of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44844893rd of 130Roster talent: 448, 93rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13513592nd of 130Recruiting: 135, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%107th of 130Returning production: 40%, 107th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.9−2.976th of 130SP+ rating: −2.9, 76th of 130 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, 2019

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.24 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 USAQ4 3:51 4th & 3 at USA 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
2. at TROYQ4 5:12 4th & 2 at TROY 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
3. at ULMQ3 4:20 4th & 3 at ULM 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs GASOQ3 9:43 4th & 2 at GASO 2, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs GASOQ3 0:25 4th & 1 at ARST 33, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at USAQ2 6:31 4th & 1 at ARST 11, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs GASOQ3 4:46 4th & 2 at GASO 30, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at TROYQ3 10:25 4th & 7 at ARST 44, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

35th 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

   SMU
2. W

   UNLV
3. L

   UGA
4. W

   SIU
5. W

   TROY
6. L

   GAST
7. L

   UL
8. W

   TXST
9. W

   ULM
10. W

    CCU
11. W

    GASO
12. L

    USA
13. W

    FIU

What moved it, 2019

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+1.18
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.26

Game by game

• SMUL 30-37 vs SMU50% → 13%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• UNLVW 43-17 at UNLV41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2
• UGAL 0-55 at UGA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• SIUW 41-28 vs SIU93% → 98%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• TROYW 50-43 at TROY28% → 87%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• GASTL 38-52 at GAST63% → 1%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −2
• ULL 20-37 vs UL30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• TXSTW 38-14 vs TXST77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27
• ULMW 48-41 at ULM50% → 94%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• CCUW 28-27 vs CCU81% → 92%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• GASOW 38-33 vs GASO53% → 95%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• USAL 30-34 at USA77% → 5%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• FIUW 34-26 vs FIU42% → 97%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +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.