Arkansas 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+0.0526th
  Defense+0.2016th
• 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.
  Offense36.1%7th
  Defense44.1%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3381st
  Defense+1.3125th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.068th
  Defense+0.1323rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1528th
  Defense+0.3611th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.7%10th
  Defense50.1%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.7%12th
  Defense31.1%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.231st
  Defense2.9663rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense29.2%1st
  Defense18.9%68th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.2%8th
  Defense17.7%72nd

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 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. W
   GRAM
2. L
   OSU
3. L
   MEM
4. L
   ODU
5. W
   ULM
6. L
   JMU
7. L
   USM
8. L
   UL
9. L
   USA
10. W
    MASS
11. L
    TXST
12. L
    TROY

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

Players, 2022

1. James BlackmanQB322 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 46th of 234 QBs
   1.48WAR0.89 to 2.13
2. Seydou TraoreTE45 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 5th of 214 TEs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.31
3. Brian SneadRB78 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 187th of 384 RBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
4. Johnnie LangRB110 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 190th of 384 RBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
5. Ryan HansonP41 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 19th of 102 punters
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
6. AJ MayerQB43 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 197th of 234 QBs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.20
7. Jeff ForemanWR30 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Dominic ZvadaPK13 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 37th of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47247287th of 129Roster talent: 472, 87th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14814883rd of 129Recruiting: 148, 83rd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  20%20%121st of 128Returning production: 20%, 121st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.0−13.0104th of 129SP+ rating: −13.0, 104th 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 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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.16 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 USMQ4 1:08 4th & 27 at ARST 41, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.2 pts
2. at TXSTQ3 7:05 4th & 2 at TXST 38, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. at TXSTQ4 3:09 4th & 9 at TXST 40, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs MASSQ4 10:00 4th & 3 at ARST 28, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs JMUQ2 5:40 4th & 2 at ARST 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at USMQ3 1:49 4th & 7 at USM 43, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs USAQ2 0:38 4th & 14 at USA 39, down 13Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs TROYQ2 6:37 4th & 4 at TROY 4, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

119th of 131 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. W

   GRAM
2. L

   OSU
3. L

   MEM
4. L

   ODU
5. W

   ULM
6. L

   JMU
7. L

   USM
8. L

   UL
9. L

   USA
10. W

    MASS
11. L

    TXST
12. L

    TROY

What moved it, 2022

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−1.71
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.04
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.25

Game by game

• GRAMW 58-3 vs GRAM95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• OSUL 12-45 at OSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• MEML 32-44 at MEM14% → 2%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• ODUL 26-29 at ODU33% → 11%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position −2
• ULMW 45-28 vs ULM69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• JMUL 20-42 vs JMU28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• USML 19-20 at USM32% → 4%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• ULL 18-38 at UL34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35, Clock +1
• USAL 3-31 vs USA27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33
• MASSW 35-33 vs MASS86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• TXSTL 13-16 at TXST37% → 4%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• TROYL 19-48 vs TROY19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25

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.