Iowa State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1455th
  Defense+0.0954th
• 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.
  Offense43.8%51st
  Defense42.1%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2257th
  Defense+1.1571st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0435th
  Defense0.0078th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2774th
  Defense+0.1747th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%42nd
  Defense45.3%65th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%72nd
  Defense36.0%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7224th
  Defense2.7374th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%28th
  Defense21.5%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%80th
  Defense17.6%70th

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, 2018

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

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

Players, 2018

1. Brock PurdyQB267 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 46th of 225 QBs
   1.59WAR1.13 to 2.09
2. David MontgomeryRB222 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 23rd of 351 RBs
   0.69WAR0.51 to 0.84
3. Zeb NolandQB113 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 149th of 225 QBs
   0.42WAR0.24 to 0.60
4. Hakeem ButlerWR91 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 12th of 434 WRs
   0.31WAR0.14 to 0.47
5. Kyle KemptQB25 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 206th of 225 QBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Connor AssalleyPK19 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 53rd of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Matthew EatonWR38 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 219th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Corey DunnP43 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 39th of 91 punters
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57657652nd of 130Roster talent: 576, 52nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17617658th of 130Recruiting: 176, 58th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%82nd of 129Returning production: 57%, 82nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.9+7.938th of 130SP+ rating: +7.9, 38th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.12 of the 0.16 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 DRKEQ4 12:25 4th & 1 at ISU 28, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs TTUQ4 4:52 4th & 4 at TTU 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. at WSUQ3 1:04 4th & 2 at WSU 6, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. at OKSTQ3 7:36 4th & 12 at OKST 35, up 9Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. at OKSTQ3 0:04 4th & 4 at OKST 4, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs OUQ4 10:43 4th & 4 at OU 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs WVUQ2 1:19 4th & 2 at ISU 42, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs BAYQ3 9:38 4th & 2 at BAY 20, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

33rd 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. L

   IOWA
2. L

   OU
3. W

   AKR
4. L

   TCU
5. W

   OKST
6. W

   WVU
7. W

   TTU
8. W

   KU
9. W

   BAY
10. L

    TEX
11. W

    KSU
12. W

    DRKE
13. L

    WSU

What moved it, 2018

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+0.86
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.04

Game by game

• IOWAL 3-13 at IOWA38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• OUL 27-37 vs OU10% → 4%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• AKRW 26-13 vs AKR92% → 97%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +14
• TCUL 14-17 at TCU23% → 4%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• OKSTW 48-42 at OKST26% → 94%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +56, Clock +4
• WVUW 30-14 vs WVU36% → 99%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −3
• TTUW 40-31 vs TTU69% → 97%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• KUW 27-3 at KU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• BAYW 28-14 vs BAY85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• TEXL 10-24 at TEX37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• KSUW 42-38 vs KSU77% → 95%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +1
• DRKEW 27-24 vs DRKE99% → 91%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −8: Scoreboard +6
• WSUL 26-28 at WSU42% → 10%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2

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.