Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.029th
  Defense+0.2111th
• 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.
  Offense40.5%26th
  Defense44.8%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1018th
  Defense+1.402nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0653rd
  Defense+0.1616th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.107th
  Defense+0.2716th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%50th
  Defense46.7%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.5%5th
  Defense40.9%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9560th
  Defense3.0330th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%76th
  Defense18.5%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%47th
  Defense15.8%47th

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, 2017

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. L
   ILL
2. W
   UAB
3. W
   TNTC
4. L
   WKU
5. L
   WMU
6. L
   AKR
7. L
   CMU
8. L
   TOL
9. L
   EMU
10. L
    NIU
11. L
    BUF
12. L
    M-OH

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

Players, 2017

1. Caleb HuntleyRB131 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 67th of 352 RBs
   0.38WAR0.28 to 0.47
2. Jack MilasQB164 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 152nd of 226 QBs
   0.32WAR0.10 to 0.56
3. Riley NealQB87 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 160th of 226 QBs
   0.28WAR0.12 to 0.43
4. Justin HallWR72 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 107th of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
5. James GilbertRB35 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 238th of 352 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.13
6. Drew PlittQB44 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 198th of 226 QBs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17
7. Morgan HageePK9 plays · +0.442 pts/play · 79th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Malik DunnerWR40 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 286th of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  318318114th of 130Roster talent: 318, 114th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  117117105th of 130Recruiting: 117, 105th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%63rd of 128Returning production: 61%, 63rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.7−19.7121st of 128SP+ rating: −19.7, 121st of 128 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, 2017

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 0.02 of the 0.11 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 AKRQ2 5:32 4th & 1 at BALL 48, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. vs BUFQ3 4:01 4th & 1 at BALL 44, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. at AKRQ3 9:40 4th & 3 at midfield, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at ILLQ4 5:18 4th & 6 at BALL 49, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at WKUQ4 10:23 4th & 5 at BALL 39, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs TNTCQ2 5:59 4th & 1 at BALL 30, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at AKRQ4 9:20 4th & 10 at AKR 22, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs CMUQ2 11:50 4th & 3 at CMU 24, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

123rd of 130 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. L

   ILL
2. W

   UAB
3. W

   TNTC
4. L

   WKU
5. L

   WMU
6. L

   AKR
7. L

   CMU
8. L

   TOL
9. L

   EMU
10. L

    NIU
11. L

    BUF
12. L

    M-OH

What moved it, 2017

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−1.97
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.31

Game by game

• ILLL 21-24 at ILL35% → 12%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• UABW 51-31 vs UAB82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• TNTCW 28-13 vs TNTC94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• WKUL 21-33 at WKU23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• WMUL 3-55 at WMU23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −25
• AKRL 3-31 at AKR41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts +1
• CMUL 9-56 vs CMU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −49, Clock −1
• TOLL 17-58 vs TOL5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• EMUL 14-56 at EMU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9
• NIUL 17-63 at NIU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• BUFL 24-40 vs BUF14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position −1
• M-OHL 7-28 vs M-OH12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1

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.