Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1042nd
  Defense+0.1726th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%56th
  Defense49.9%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1424th
  Defense+1.1086th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1266th
  Defense+0.198th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0929th
  Defense+0.1553rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%45th
  Defense54.5%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%72nd
  Defense38.0%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1784th
  Defense3.257th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%78th
  Defense15.7%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%58th
  Defense14.1%15th

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, 2018

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
   CCSU
2. L
   ND
3. L
   IU
4. L
   WKU
5. W
   KENT
6. L
   NIU
7. W
   CMU
8. L
   EMU
9. L
   OHIO
10. L
    TOL
11. W
    WMU
12. L
    M-OH

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

Players, 2018

1. Riley NealQB305 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 59th of 225 QBs
   1.39WAR0.88 to 1.91
2. James GilbertRB132 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 72nd of 351 RBs
   0.44WAR0.36 to 0.52
3. Drew PlittQB97 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 174th of 225 QBs
   0.24WAR0.09 to 0.41
4. Riley MillerWR70 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 49th of 434 WRs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.28
5. Corey LacanariaWR53 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 95th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
6. Morgan HageePK13 plays · +0.407 pts/play · 57th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. Malik DunnerWR62 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 247th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
8. Caleb HuntleyRB26 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 275th of 351 RBs
   0.07WAR0.06 to 0.09

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  362362109th of 130Roster talent: 362, 109th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  119119109th of 130Recruiting: 119, 109th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  127%127%1st of 129Returning production: 127%, 1st of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.9−18.9119th of 130SP+ rating: −18.9, 119th of 130 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, 2018

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.05 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 NDQ4 1:30 4th & 7 at ND 31, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
2. vs CCSUQ3 15:00 4th & 8 at BALL 27, up 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs NIUQ3 13:39 4th & 5 at NIU 43, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs WKUQ4 0:59 4th & 17 at BALL 18, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs KENTQ3 14:00 4th & 3 at BALL 42, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at IUQ2 4:40 4th & 2 at BALL 28, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs NIUQ3 0:24 4th & 5 at NIU 30, down 15Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at NDQ4 4:50 4th & 11 at ND 28, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

100th 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. W

   CCSU
2. L

   ND
3. L

   IU
4. L

   WKU
5. W

   KENT
6. L

   NIU
7. W

   CMU
8. L

   EMU
9. L

   OHIO
10. L

    TOL
11. W

    WMU
12. L

    M-OH

What moved it, 2018

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−1.82
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.39

Game by game

• CCSUW 42-6 vs CCSU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• NDL 16-24 at ND3% → 2%Before kickoff −47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −7
• IUL 10-38 at IU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• WKUL 20-28 vs WKU66% → 7%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• KENTW 52-24 vs KENT73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29
• NIUL 16-24 vs NIU49% → 5%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• CMUW 24-23 at CMU55% → 61%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +21, Clock +4
• EMUL 20-42 vs EMU52% → 1%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −53, Clock −2
• OHIOL 14-52 at OHIO28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30
• TOLL 13-45 at TOL14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −16
• WMUW 42-41 vs WMU29% → 67%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +38: Timeouts −20, Clock +18
• M-OHL 21-42 at M-OH20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24

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.