Iowa State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1345th
  Defense+0.1141st
• 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.
  Offense39.3%20th
  Defense41.6%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3176th
  Defense+1.2740th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1355th
  Defense+0.0745th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1634th
  Defense+0.2041st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%18th
  Defense48.9%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%32nd
  Defense23.7%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0142nd
  Defense3.0039th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%14th
  Defense17.8%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.5%12th
  Defense15.4%43rd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Iowa 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
   SEMO
2. L
   IOWA
3. W
   BGSU
4. L
   UTAH
5. W
   WVU
6. L
   BYU

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

Players, 2026

1. Jaylen RaynorQB126 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 100th of 192 QBs
   0.19WAR0.02 to 0.36
2. Aiden FloraRB76 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 17th of 320 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
3. Omari HayesWR16 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 157th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
4. Kyle KonrardyPK6 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 29th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
5. Cameron PettawayRB14 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 236th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
6. Dominic OverbyWR9 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 281st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
7. Arnold Barnes IIIRB9 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 265th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Tyler FortenberryTE3 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Iowa 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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67067068th of 138Roster talent: 670, 68th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19919951st of 138Recruiting: 199, 51st of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  2%2%131st of 136Returning production: 2%, 131st of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.0+1.066th of 138SP+ rating so far: +1.0, 66th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Iowa 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 0.04 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. at BYUQ4 14:47 4th & 24 at ISU 11, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
2. at IOWAQ3 5:39 4th & 3 at ISU 10, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs WVUQ3 2:13 4th & 4 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs UTAHQ2 0:08 4th & 16 at UTAH 43, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs UTAHQ2 0:08 4th & 16 at UTAH 43, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs UTAHQ4 11:04 4th & 12 at UTAH 34, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at BYUQ3 13:05 4th & 4 at ISU 46, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at IOWAQ1 5:17 4th & 2 at ISU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

67th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Iowa State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   SEMO
2. L

   IOWA
3. W

   BGSU
4. L

   UTAH
5. W

   WVU
6. L

   BYU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Iowa 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−0.12
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.25

Game by game

• SEMOW 38-10 vs SEMO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• IOWAL 13-16 at IOWA15% → 11%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −2
• BGSUW 55-7 vs BGSU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• UTAHL 17-31 vs UTAH23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• WVUW 45-42 vs WVU55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• BYUL 10-24 at BYU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1

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

Closest call

ISU 38-31 OU (2017) - Iowa State dropped to a 3.3% win probability before pulling it out.