Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0119th
  Defense+0.266th
• 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.
  Offense40.9%30th
  Defense48.2%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.042nd
  Defense+1.2429th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0124th
  Defense+0.0743rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0321st
  Defense+0.491st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%24th
  Defense50.5%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%42nd
  Defense42.6%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8449th
  Defense2.9335th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%71st
  Defense17.4%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense1.2%2nd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Ball 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
   VMI
2. L
   TA&M
3. W
   EMU
4. L
   NU
5. L
   TOL
6. L
   NIU
7. L
   GAST
8. L
   CMU
9. W
   MASS
10. L
    WMU
11. L
    OHIO
12. L
    BGSU

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

Players, 2015

1. Riley NealQB390 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 54th of 205 QBs
   1.59WAR0.95 to 2.22
2. James GilbertRB108 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 99th of 333 RBs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.33
3. KeVonn MabonWR87 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 56th of 411 WRs
   0.23WAR0.10 to 0.39
4. Darian GreenRB122 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 111th of 333 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.30
5. Corey LacanariaWR42 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 146th of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
6. Morgan HageePK15 plays · +0.396 pts/play · 64th of 115 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Kyle SchmidtP41 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 52nd of 92 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
8. Chris ShillingsWR20 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 353rd of 411 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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 Ball 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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  350350107th of 128Roster talent: 350, 107th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114102nd of 128Recruiting: 114, 102nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%64th of 127Returning production: 61%, 64th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.5−15.5113th of 128SP+ rating: −15.5, 113th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Ball State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.09 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 GASTQ4 8:54 4th & 3 at BALL 38, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs CMUQ3 10:34 4th & 1 at BALL 19, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at EMUQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at BALL 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at WMUQ2 14:30 4th & 1 at BALL 36, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs CMUQ2 11:54 4th & 4 at BALL 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at OHIOQ4 12:09 4th & 8 at OHIO 30, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs MASSQ4 3:08 4th & 8 at MASS 9, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs VMIQ3 7:29 4th & 5 at VMI 46, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

99th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   VMI
2. L

   TA&M
3. W

   EMU
4. L

   NU
5. L

   TOL
6. L

   NIU
7. L

   GAST
8. L

   CMU
9. W

   MASS
10. L

    WMU
11. L

    OHIO
12. L

    BGSU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Ball 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−1.22
• Clock−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• VMIW 48-36 vs VMI69% → 97%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• TA&ML 23-56 at TA&M4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• EMUW 28-17 at EMU62% → 97%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• NUL 19-24 at NU11% → 8%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position −2
• TOLL 10-24 vs TOL23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• NIUL 41-59 at NIU22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• GASTL 19-31 vs GAST84% → 3%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• CMUL 21-23 vs CMU32% → 12%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −36, Clock −3
• MASSW 20-10 vs MASS56% → 97%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position +2
• WMUL 7-54 at WMU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• OHIOL 31-48 at OHIO27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts +1
• BGSUL 10-48 vs BGSU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12

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

Closest call

BALL 20-17 NIU (2023) - Ball State dropped to a 6.1% win probability before pulling it out.