Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0217th
  Defense+0.1048th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%34th
  Defense43.2%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.139th
  Defense+1.1483rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0538th
  Defense+0.1037th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1220th
  Defense+0.1855th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%24th
  Defense48.8%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%45th
  Defense31.4%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2878th
  Defense3.2919th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.2%90th
  Defense12.1%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%32nd
  Defense16.0%48th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   TENN
2. L
   WMU
3. W
   MUR
4. L
   GASO
5. W
   NIU
6. W
   CMU
7. W
   CONN
8. L
   EMU
9. W
   KENT
10. L
    TOL
11. L
    OHIO
12. L
    M-OH

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

Players, 2022

1. Carson SteeleRB239 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 13th of 384 RBs
   0.67WAR0.45 to 0.86
2. Jayshon JacksonWR106 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 24th of 455 WRs
   0.27WAR0.08 to 0.45
3. John PaddockQB394 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 162nd of 234 QBs
   0.26WAR−0.52 to 1.12
4. Brady HuntTE49 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 7th of 214 TEs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
5. Tanner KoziolTE36 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 18th of 214 TEs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
6. Lucas BorrowP52 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 22nd of 102 punters
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.19
7. Amir Abdur-RahmanWR23 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 285th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Ben VonGuntenPK17 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 47th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  345345120th of 129Roster talent: 345, 120th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130106th of 129Recruiting: 130, 106th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%95th of 128Returning production: 37%, 95th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.9−14.9111th of 129SP+ rating: −14.9, 111th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.28 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 5:33 4th & 4 at BALL 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.6 pts
2. at CMUQ4 7:18 4th & 2 at BALL 39, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.5 pts
3. at GASOQ4 5:30 4th & 4 at BALL 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.2 pts
4. at GASOQ4 12:39 4th & 2 at GASO 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.0 pts
5. at GASOQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at BALL 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
6. at TOLQ4 3:24 4th & 2 at BALL 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it2.0 pts
7. vs WMUQ3 11:14 4th & 2 at BALL 30, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
8. at CMUQ3 1:19 4th & 3 at CMU 48, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

59th of 131 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

   TENN
2. L

   WMU
3. W

   MUR
4. L

   GASO
5. W

   NIU
6. W

   CMU
7. W

   CONN
8. L

   EMU
9. W

   KENT
10. L

    TOL
11. L

    OHIO
12. L

    M-OH

What moved it, 2022

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−0.63
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.70

Game by game

• TENNL 10-59 at TENN1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• WMUL 30-37 vs WMU33% → 6%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• MURW 31-0 vs MUR93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• GASOL 23-34 at GASO24% → 3%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• NIUW 44-38 vs NIU36% → 52%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +16: Scoreboard −10, Clock −3
• CMUW 17-16 at CMU27% → 94%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• CONNW 25-21 vs CONN74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• EMUL 16-20 vs EMU59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• KENTW 27-20 at KENT31% → 96%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• TOLL 21-28 at TOL18% → 4%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• OHIOL 18-32 vs OHIO45% → 1%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• M-OHL 17-18 at M-OH39% → 34%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −2, Clock −1

Points of win probability, from Ball State's side.

Closest call

BALL 32-31 BGSU (2026) - Ball State dropped to a 4.7% win probability before pulling it out.