Ball State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.067th
  Defense+0.1143rd
• 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.
  Offense32.7%1st
  Defense44.5%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2973rd
  Defense+1.2547th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0024th
  Defense+0.1033rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.104th
  Defense+0.2330th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.9%2nd
  Defense49.6%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.
  Offense21.7%2nd
  Defense32.4%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.524th
  Defense2.9739th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.7%10th
  Defense20.6%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.0%1st
  Defense14.0%23rd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   PUR
2. L
   AUB
3. W
   UNH
4. L
   CONN
5. W
   OHIO
6. L
   WMU
7. W
   AKR
8. L
   NIU
9. W
   KENT
10. L
    EMU
11. L
    TOL
12. L
    M-OH

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

Players, 2025

1. Kiael KellyQB305 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 124th of 231 QBs
   0.58WAR0.04 to 1.12
2. Qua AshleyRB96 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 167th of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
3. TJ HortonRB50 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 247th of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
4. Qian MagwoodWR28 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 317th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10
5. Eric WeatherlyWR9 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 410th of 451 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
6. Adam SaulP44 plays · −0.027 pts/play · 85th of 100 punters
   −0.02WAR−0.09 to 0.06

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  495495115th of 134Roster talent: 495, 115th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  128128111th of 134Recruiting: 128, 111th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  8%8%126th of 132Returning production: 8%, 126th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −23.0−23.0130th of 134SP+ rating: −23.0, 130th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.09 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 KENTQ4 1:53 4th & 2 at KENT 29, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal3.0 pts
2. vs OHIOQ4 6:02 4th & 6 at BALL 43, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
3. at CONNQ3 0:37 4th & 3 at CONN 6, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
4. vs OHIOQ3 0:25 4th & 4 at OHIO 5, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
5. vs AKRQ2 4:18 4th & 3 at BALL 49, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
6. vs EMUQ4 3:21 4th & 17 at EMU 35, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
7. at WMUQ2 0:02 4th & 3 at BALL 48, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs EMUQ3 10:04 4th & 4 at EMU 8, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

45th of 136 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

   PUR
2. L

   AUB
3. W

   UNH
4. L

   CONN
5. W

   OHIO
6. L

   WMU
7. W

   AKR
8. L

   NIU
9. W

   KENT
10. L

    EMU
11. L

    TOL
12. L

    M-OH

What moved it, 2025

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−0.27
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.97

Game by game

• PURL 0-31 at PUR12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts +1
• AUBL 3-42 at AUB1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• UNHW 34-29 vs UNH63% → 91%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• CONNL 25-31 at CONN6% → 8%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts +3
• OHIOW 20-14 vs OHIO14% → 77%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position −4
• WMUL 0-42 at WMU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• AKRW 42-28 vs AKR45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +53, Clock −2
• NIUL 7-21 at NIU28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• KENTW 17-13 vs KENT55% → 93%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +4
• EMUL 9-24 vs EMU38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• TOLL 9-38 at TOL2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• M-OHL 24-45 at M-OH12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, 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.