Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0625th
  Defense+0.248th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%42nd
  Defense46.5%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2540th
  Defense+1.438th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0739th
  Defense+0.1428th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1129th
  Defense+0.405th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%58th
  Defense49.5%27th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.3%26th
  Defense40.3%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0655th
  Defense3.1732nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.6%95th
  Defense17.2%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.3%13th
  Defense13.4%12th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   MOST
2. L
   MIA
3. L
   CMU
4. L
   JMU
5. L
   WMU
6. W
   KENT
7. L
   VAN
8. W
   NIU
9. L
   M-OH
10. L
    BUF
11. L
    BGSU
12. L
    OHIO

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

Players, 2024

1. Kadin SemonzaQB371 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 46th of 232 QBs
   1.70WAR1.02 to 2.27
2. Braedon SloanRB153 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 59th of 373 RBs
   0.36WAR0.25 to 0.46
3. Kiael KellyQB34 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 182nd of 232 QBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
4. Vaughn PembertonLB53 plays · +0.113 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
5. Cam PickettWR63 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 169th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.01 to 0.18
6. Jackson CourvillePK10 plays · +0.390 pts/play · 67th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Tanner KoziolTE80 plays · +0.031 pts/play · 72nd of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.15 to 0.23
8. Malcolm GillieWR25 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 258th of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.10

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  464464119th of 131Roster talent: 464, 119th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13413498th of 131Recruiting: 134, 98th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%48th of 130Returning production: 56%, 48th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.8−19.8123rd of 131SP+ rating: −19.8, 123rd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.31 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 BUFQ4 0:13 4th & 10 at BUF 41, down 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−19.5 pts
2. vs NIUQ4 1:51 4th & 3 at NIU 16, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. at CMUQ2 7:10 4th & 2 at CMU 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs M-OHQ4 6:28 4th & 4 at BALL 12, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at KENTQ1 0:51 4th & 2 at KENT 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at KENTQ4 9:37 4th & 2 at BALL 44, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs WMUQ4 2:28 4th & 11 at BALL 14, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs NIUQ3 1:48 4th & 15 at NIU 37, up 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

64th of 134 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

   MOST
2. L

   MIA
3. L

   CMU
4. L

   JMU
5. L

   WMU
6. W

   KENT
7. L

   VAN
8. W

   NIU
9. L

   M-OH
10. L

    BUF
11. L

    BGSU
12. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2024

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−0.70
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.94

Game by game

• MOSTW 42-34 vs MOST58% → 91%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• MIAL 0-62 at MIA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• CMUL 34-37 at CMU31% → 16%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −3
• JMUL 7-63 at JMU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• WMUL 42-45 vs WMU22% → 6%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• KENTW 37-35 at KENT57% → 94%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• VANL 14-24 at VAN5% → 2%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts +1
• NIUW 25-23 vs NIU17% → 84%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• M-OHL 21-27 vs M-OH18% → 6%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• BUFL 48-51 at BUF46% → 22%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −13, Clock −2
• BGSUL 13-38 vs BGSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• OHIOL 21-42 at OHIO14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18

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.