Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.1342nd
• 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.
  Offense39.8%27th
  Defense41.9%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.095th
  Defense+1.1486th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1362nd
  Defense+0.0560th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.003rd
  Defense+0.2540th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%52nd
  Defense48.5%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.4%10th
  Defense27.9%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3384th
  Defense3.0947th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.1%98th
  Defense14.4%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%41st
  Defense16.4%52nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   UK
2. L
   UGA
3. W
   INST
4. L
   GASO
5. L
   WMU
6. L
   EMU
7. L
   TOL
8. W
   CMU
9. L
   BGSU
10. W
    NIU
11. W
    KENT
12. L
    M-OH

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

Players, 2023

1. Kiael KellyQB222 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 75th of 250 QBs
   1.23WAR0.74 to 1.79
2. Marquez CooperRB196 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 14th of 383 RBs
   0.56WAR0.36 to 0.71
3. Tanner KoziolTE32 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 72nd of 212 TEs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.17
4. Ahmad EdwardsWR27 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 220th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
5. Lucas BorrowP43 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 62nd of 103 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.14
6. Layne HatcherQB67 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 223rd of 250 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.08 to 0.25
7. Qian MagwoodWR48 plays · −0.092 pts/play · 456th of 457 WRs
   −0.08WAR−0.19 to 0.03

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  404404111th of 130Roster talent: 404, 111th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13113198th of 130Recruiting: 131, 98th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%111th of 128Returning production: 26%, 111th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.9−14.9115th of 130SP+ rating: −14.9, 115th 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, 2023

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 0.07 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 TOLQ3 7:36 4th & 8 at TOL 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
2. at WMUQ3 6:37 4th & 2 at BALL 46, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. at WMUQ4 12:15 4th & 2 at BALL 44, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at EMUQ4 0:14 4th & 21 at EMU 32, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at EMUQ4 6:38 4th & 7 at EMU 7, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs TOLQ2 0:26 4th & 16 at TOL 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs M-OHQ4 13:24 4th & 4 at BALL 42, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at NIUQ2 1:04 4th & 2 at NIU 19, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

68th of 133 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

   UK
2. L

   UGA
3. W

   INST
4. L

   GASO
5. L

   WMU
6. L

   EMU
7. L

   TOL
8. W

   CMU
9. L

   BGSU
10. W

    NIU
11. W

    KENT
12. L

    M-OH

What moved it, 2023

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−0.14
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.78

Game by game

• UKL 14-44 at UK4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• UGAL 3-45 at UGA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• INSTW 45-7 vs INST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• GASOL 3-40 vs GASO30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• WMUL 24-42 at WMU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +1
• EMUL 10-24 at EMU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• TOLL 6-13 vs TOL10% → 4%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• CMUW 24-17 vs CMU34% → 97%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• BGSUL 21-24 at BGSU35% → 19%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position +3
• NIUW 20-17 at NIU22% → 97%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2
• KENTW 34-3 vs KENT80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24
• M-OHL 15-17 vs M-OH31% → 72%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position −2

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.