Iowa State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1043rd
  Defense+0.2114th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%52nd
  Defense48.9%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1630th
  Defense+1.1569th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0333rd
  Defense+0.236th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1854th
  Defense+0.2231st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%64th
  Defense53.7%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%37th
  Defense36.6%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1169th
  Defense3.1816th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%82nd
  Defense16.9%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%58th
  Defense16.0%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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. L
   UNI
2. L
   IOWA
3. L
   TCU
4. W
   SJSU
5. L
   BAY
6. L
   OKST
7. L
   TEX
8. L
   KSU
9. L
   OU
10. W
    KU
11. W
    TTU
12. L
    WVU

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

Players, 2016

1. Jacob ParkQB195 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 101st of 218 QBs
   0.79WAR0.49 to 1.08
2. Joel LanningLB69 plays · +0.277 pts/play
   0.36WAR0.26 to 0.45
3. Allen LazardWR77 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 17th of 417 WRs
   0.35WAR0.22 to 0.48
4. David MontgomeryRB104 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 158th of 347 RBs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.33
5. Mike WarrenRB100 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 180th of 347 RBs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.31
6. Colin DowningP37 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 48th of 82 punters
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.20
7. Cole NettenPK14 plays · +0.477 pts/play · 42nd of 116 kickers
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
8. Deshaunte JonesWR35 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 210th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55255256th of 128Roster talent: 552, 56th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17017059th of 128Recruiting: 170, 59th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%73rd of 128Returning production: 63%, 73rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.7+0.765th of 128SP+ rating: +0.7, 65th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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 OKSTQ2 0:01 4th & 19 at ISU 47, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.8 pts
2. vs KSUQ4 6:47 4th & 19 at KSU 31, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
3. vs UNIQ3 14:55 4th & 6 at UNI 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs BAYQ4 10:07 4th & 3 at ISU 17, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at IOWAQ2 10:15 4th & 1 at ISU 42, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs SJSUQ3 8:19 4th & 1 at ISU 46, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs WVUQ2 2:07 4th & 9 at WVU 40, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UNIQ2 15:00 4th & 2 at UNI 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

91st of 128 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. L

   UNI
2. L

   IOWA
3. L

   TCU
4. W

   SJSU
5. L

   BAY
6. L

   OKST
7. L

   TEX
8. L

   KSU
9. L

   OU
10. W

    KU
11. W

    TTU
12. L

    WVU

What moved it, 2016

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−1.07
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.44

Game by game

• UNIL 20-25 vs UNI79% → 3%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• IOWAL 3-42 at IOWA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• TCUL 20-41 at TCU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• SJSUW 44-10 vs SJSU68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −1
• BAYL 42-45 vs BAY13% → 6%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −24, Clock −2
• OKSTL 31-38 at OKST13% → 7%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position −1
• TEXL 6-27 at TEX14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• KSUL 26-31 vs KSU35% → 5%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• OUL 24-34 vs OU9% → 2%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• KUW 31-24 at KU76% → 90%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position −2
• TTUW 66-10 vs TTU40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −1
• WVUL 19-49 vs WVU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −31

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.