Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1667th
  Defense+0.1247th
• 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.
  Offense46.5%78th
  Defense45.0%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1844th
  Defense+1.1960th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1164th
  Defense+0.0747th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2461st
  Defense+0.1943rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.2%71st
  Defense50.0%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.5%80th
  Defense34.2%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1981st
  Defense2.8951st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.8%74th
  Defense20.5%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.5%50th
  Defense21.5%69th

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, 2019

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

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

Players, 2019

1. Drew PlittQB384 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 76th of 228 QBs
   1.07WAR0.33 to 1.78
2. Caleb HuntleyRB228 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 19th of 349 RBs
   0.74WAR0.56 to 0.92
3. Walter FletcherRB138 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 100th of 349 RBs
   0.40WAR0.29 to 0.50
4. Ryan RimmlerPK20 plays · +0.433 pts/play · 24th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
5. Riley MillerWR61 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 147th of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
6. Justin HallWR94 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 155th of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.22
7. Antwan DavisWR42 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 157th of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.16
8. Yo'Heinz TylerWR37 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 191st of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  328328120th of 130Roster talent: 328, 120th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  120120114th of 130Recruiting: 120, 114th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%82nd of 130Returning production: 53%, 82nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.5−4.586th of 130SP+ rating: −4.5, 86th 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, 2019

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 KENTQ3 11:43 4th & 1 at BALL 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs CMUQ4 13:04 4th & 4 at CMU 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at NCSUQ3 7:23 4th & 1 at BALL 39, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at EMUQ4 1:26 4th & 9 at EMU 33, up 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
5. at EMUQ3 14:49 4th & 6 at EMU 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at NIUQ4 5:09 4th & 3 at BALL 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs IUQ4 1:39 4th & 14 at BALL 32, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at KENTQ3 7:19 4th & 5 at KENT 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

83rd 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

   IU
2. W

   FOR
3. L

   FAU
4. L

   NCSU
5. W

   NIU
6. W

   EMU
7. W

   TOL
8. L

   OHIO
9. L

   WMU
10. L

    CMU
11. L

    KENT
12. W

    M-OH

What moved it, 2019

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−0.41
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• IUL 24-34 vs IU9% → 4%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• FORW 57-29 vs FOR97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• FAUL 31-41 vs FAU44% → 9%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• NCSUL 23-34 at NCSU11% → 2%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• NIUW 27-20 at NIU38% → 91%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• EMUW 29-23 at EMU43% → 96%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• TOLW 52-14 vs TOL55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +44
• OHIOL 21-34 vs OHIO58% → 2%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• WMUL 31-35 at WMU29% → 5%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29
• CMUL 44-45 vs CMU54% → 15%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• KENTL 38-41 at KENT53% → 14%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• M-OHW 41-27 vs M-OH60% → 97%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position +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.