Iowa State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1467th
  Defense+0.0660th
• 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.
  Offense42.5%45th
  Defense40.3%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2155th
  Defense+1.2725th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0128th
  Defense−0.0481st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2778th
  Defense+0.1743rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%33rd
  Defense45.8%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.8%74th
  Defense29.1%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6418th
  Defense2.5880th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%65th
  Defense23.6%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%61st
  Defense18.3%72nd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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

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

Players, 2017

1. Kyle KemptQB252 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 60th of 226 QBs
   1.20WAR0.75 to 1.63
2. Jacob ParkQB126 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 113th of 226 QBs
   0.56WAR0.32 to 0.81
3. David MontgomeryRB253 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 37th of 352 RBs
   0.47WAR0.27 to 0.65
4. Allen LazardWR108 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 6th of 426 WRs
   0.32WAR0.19 to 0.42
5. Zeb NolandQB58 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 165th of 226 QBs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.36
6. Hakeem ButlerWR53 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 86th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
7. Marchie MurdockWR53 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 127th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. Joel LanningLB26 plays · +0.195 pts/play
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55955956th of 130Roster talent: 559, 56th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17217257th of 130Recruiting: 172, 57th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%5th of 128Returning production: 91%, 5th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.5+7.544th of 128SP+ rating: +7.5, 44th of 128 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.22 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 WVUQ3 2:29 4th & 1 at WVU 1, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. vs TCUQ4 11:09 4th & 1 at ISU 26, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. at WVUQ4 13:34 4th & 1 at ISU 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at TTUQ4 14:55 4th & 5 at TTU 41, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at MEMQ3 12:37 4th & 2 at ISU 19, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at TTUQ4 6:31 4th & 1 at ISU 48, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs OKSTQ2 14:52 4th & 1 at ISU 18, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at KSUQ2 12:54 4th & 1 at ISU 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

17th of 130 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

   UNI
2. L

   IOWA
3. W

   AKR
4. L

   TEX
5. W

   OU
6. W

   KU
7. W

   TTU
8. W

   TCU
9. L

   WVU
10. L

    OKST
11. W

    BAY
12. L

    KSU
13. W

    MEM

What moved it, 2017

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+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• UNIW 42-24 vs UNI83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• IOWAL 41-44 vs IOWA48% → 12%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −18
• AKRW 41-14 at AKR80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• TEXL 7-17 vs TEX38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• OUW 38-31 at OU3% → 95%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +91: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• KUW 45-0 vs KU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• TTUW 31-13 at TTU37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• TCUW 14-7 vs TCU30% → 96%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +1
• WVUL 16-20 at WVU47% → 4%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• OKSTL 42-49 vs OKST32% → 7%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• BAYW 23-13 at BAY73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position +1
• KSUL 19-20 at KSU47% → 6%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −2
• MEMW 21-20 at MEM40% → 93%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3

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.