Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1769th
  Defense+0.0766th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%83rd
  Defense46.4%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1616th
  Defense+1.1782nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0955th
  Defense−0.0688th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2870th
  Defense+0.1852nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.6%73rd
  Defense51.5%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.
  Offense38.1%87th
  Defense32.4%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1675th
  Defense2.7467th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%86th
  Defense20.0%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.8%71st
  Defense18.9%83rd

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   M-OH
2. W
   EMU
3. W
   NIU
4. W
   TOL
5. W
   CMU
6. W
   WMU
7. W
   BUF
8. W
   SJSU

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

Players, 2020

1. Drew PlittQB266 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 65th of 212 QBs
   0.56WAR0.03 to 1.10
2. Tye EvansRB68 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 125th of 338 RBs
   0.26WAR0.21 to 0.31
3. Caleb HuntleyRB60 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 150th of 338 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.27
4. Will JonesRB65 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 158th of 338 RBs
   0.21WAR0.17 to 0.25
5. Justin HallWR79 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 29th of 409 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.26
6. Yo'Heinz TylerWR53 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 61st of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.22
7. Antwan DavisWR46 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 95th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
8. Cody RudyFB16 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 282nd of 338 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  258258118th of 127Roster talent: 258, 118th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125116th of 127Recruiting: 125, 116th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%37th of 127Returning production: 76%, 37th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.7−6.797th of 127SP+ rating: −6.7, 97th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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. vs EMUQ4 5:02 4th & 3 at EMU 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs WMUQ4 6:57 4th & 3 at BALL 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at SJSUQ2 0:33 4th & 16 at SJSU 34, up 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at BUFQ4 5:01 4th & 4 at BUF 47, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at CMUQ2 14:53 4th & 1 at CMU 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at BUFQ3 9:10 4th & 4 at BUF 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs WMUQ3 9:04 4th & 10 at WMU 29, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at TOLQ2 6:52 4th & 4 at TOL 19, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

3rd of 127 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

   M-OH
2. W

   EMU
3. W

   NIU
4. W

   TOL
5. W

   CMU
6. W

   WMU
7. W

   BUF
8. W

   SJSU

What moved it, 2020

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+2.41
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.10

Game by game

• M-OHL 31-38 at M-OH50% → 12%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −26, Clock −2
• EMUW 38-31 vs EMU76% → 69%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +3, Possession & field position +3
• NIUW 31-25 vs NIU84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• TOLW 27-24 at TOL24% → 90%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• CMUW 45-20 at CMU55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +47, Clock +1
• WMUW 30-27 vs WMU50% → 84%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• BUFW 38-28 at BUF19% → 95%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• SJSUW 34-13 at SJSU29% → 100%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +64, Clock +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.