Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1045th
  Defense+0.1533rd
• 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.
  Offense49.2%94th
  Defense44.1%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.001st
  Defense+1.2817th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1677th
  Defense−0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0524th
  Defense+0.2619th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.9%89th
  Defense46.9%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.1%87th
  Defense38.4%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3897th
  Defense2.7668th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.1%95th
  Defense25.2%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%74th
  Defense16.7%55th

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, 2016

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
   GAST
2. L
   IU
3. W
   EKU
4. W
   FAU
5. L
   NIU
6. L
   CMU
7. W
   BUF
8. L
   AKR
9. L
   WMU
10. L
    EMU
11. L
    TOL
12. L
    M-OH

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

Players, 2016

1. Riley NealQB420 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 66th of 218 QBs
   1.22WAR0.64 to 1.86
2. James GilbertRB214 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 13th of 347 RBs
   0.74WAR0.52 to 1.00
3. KeVonn MabonWR109 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 56th of 417 WRs
   0.23WAR0.08 to 0.37
4. Darian GreenRB70 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 224th of 347 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.19
5. Corey LacanariaWR38 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 171st of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
6. Damon HazeltonWR57 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 229th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
7. Kyle SchmidtP50 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 61st of 82 punters
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.19
8. Morgan HageePK13 plays · +0.333 pts/play · 72nd of 116 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  366366109th of 128Roster talent: 366, 109th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  113113109th of 128Recruiting: 113, 109th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  95%95%9th of 128Returning production: 95%, 9th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.0−7.096th of 128SP+ rating: −7.0, 96th 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, 2016

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 of the 0.29 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 M-OHQ4 5:44 4th & 2 at M-OH 48, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. vs EMUQ4 8:38 4th & 4 at EMU 47, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. vs NIUQ3 14:54 4th & 1 at BALL 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
4. vs AKRQ3 10:41 4th & 1 at BALL 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
5. vs EMUQ3 12:47 4th & 1 at BALL 43, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. vs NIUQ4 11:07 4th & 7 at NIU 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
7. vs NIUQ4 5:56 4th & 7 at NIU 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. at BUFQ4 4:56 4th & 1 at BUF 17, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

114th 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

   GAST
2. L

   IU
3. W

   EKU
4. W

   FAU
5. L

   NIU
6. L

   CMU
7. W

   BUF
8. L

   AKR
9. L

   WMU
10. L

    EMU
11. L

    TOL
12. L

    M-OH

What moved it, 2016

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−1.15
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.14

Game by game

• GASTW 31-21 at GAST70% → 96%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• IUL 20-30 at IU15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −1
• EKUW 41-14 vs EKU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +19
• FAUW 31-27 at FAU64% → 92%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• NIUL 24-31 vs NIU56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• CMUL 21-24 at CMU19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• BUFW 31-21 at BUF79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• AKRL 25-35 vs AKR61% → 4%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• WMUL 20-52 vs WMU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• EMUL 41-48 vs EMU64% → 11%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −47, Clock −4
• TOLL 19-37 at TOL12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• M-OHL 20-21 at M-OH34% → 20%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −3

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.