Austin Peay
Expected points
YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →
Drives vs. expectation, 2017
Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.
Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.
Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.
Average expected points where drives started.
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 Austin Peay 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.
Game by game
Bars above the line: better than expected for Austin Peay.
Fourth downs
YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →
Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2017
Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.
Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.
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 Austin Peay's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and every call that differed was a close one. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right.
Costliest calls against the numbers
- at CINQ4 2:57 4th & 1 at CIN 3, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.6 pts
- at UCFQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at APSU 16, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts
- at CINQ1 15:00 4th & 2 at APSU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.1 pts
- at M-OHQ4 5:23 4th & 2 at APSU 33, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts
- at CINQ4 15:00 4th & 6 at CIN 25, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts
Every call this season (28)
- Close callQ1 15:004th & 2 at APSU 48, tied, Punted
- AgreedQ1 10:474th & 1 at CIN 39, tied, Went for it
- AgreedQ1 6:274th & 7 at CIN 34, tied, Went for it
- AgreedQ1 3:414th & 12 at APSU 29, tied, Punted
- AgreedQ2 14:204th & 11 at APSU 20, tied, Punted
- AgreedQ2 5:484th & 5 at APSU 13, tied, Punted
- AgreedQ3 11:584th & 22 at APSU 1, down 7, Punted
- AgreedQ3 8:284th & 19 at APSU 11, down 7, Punted
- Close callQ4 15:004th & 6 at CIN 25, down 13, Went for it
- AgreedQ4 9:364th & 9 at APSU 11, down 6, Punted
- AgreedQ4 4:114th & 2 at CIN 33, down 12, Went for it
- Close callQ4 2:574th & 1 at CIN 3, down 12, Went for it
- AgreedQ1 12:434th & 4 at APSU 18, tied, Punted
- AgreedQ2 14:464th & 9 at APSU 26, down 7, Punted
- AgreedQ2 9:504th & 5 at M-OH 38, down 14, Went for it
- AgreedQ2 1:494th & 23 at APSU 37, down 14, Punted
- AgreedQ3 10:394th & 8 at M-OH 21, down 14, Kicked a field goal
- AgreedQ3 8:144th & 7 at M-OH 20, down 14, Kicked a field goal
- AgreedQ3 6:094th & 19 at APSU 21, down 11, Punted
- Close callQ4 5:234th & 2 at APSU 33, down 21, Went for it
- AgreedQ4 0:454th & 2 at APSU 34, down 21, Went for it
- AgreedQ1 3:264th & 1 at UCF 7, down 7, Went for it
- AgreedQ1 3:144th & 10 at APSU 25, down 7, Punted
- AgreedQ2 4:384th & 3 at UCF 12, down 18, Went for it
- Close callQ3 15:004th & 1 at APSU 16, down 19, Punted
- AgreedQ3 2:534th & 9 at UCF 38, down 26, Went for it
- AgreedQ4 14:154th & 25 at APSU 20, down 33, Punted
- AgreedQ4 3:064th & 1 at APSU 30, down 40, Went for it
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.
Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.
Costliest tries against the numbers
Win probability
YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →
Record vs. expectation, 2017
Expected wins adds up Austin Peay's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.
What moved it, 2017
Every game starts at Austin Peay'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−0.10
- Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.09
Game by game
- CINL 14-26 at CIN1% → 2%Before kickoff −49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −4
- M-OHL 10-31 at M-OH2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
- UCFL 33-73 at UCF1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
Points of win probability, from Austin Peay's side.
Closest call
APSU 34-14 MTSU (2025) - Austin Peay dropped to a 12.0% win probability before pulling it out.
Season arc, 2017
Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Austin Peay's own win-probability curve.
Biggest swings of 2017
The largest single-play change in Austin Peay's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.
Stolen wins
Austin Peay's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.
Let it slip
Austin Peay's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.
Stock & rivalries
Stock
Austin Peay's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.
Series & rivalries
Austin Peay's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.