Iowa State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1769th
  Defense+0.1243rd
• 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.
  Offense45.4%66th
  Defense42.6%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2775th
  Defense+1.1377th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0228th
  Defense+0.0456th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2978th
  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.
  Offense48.8%61st
  Defense47.7%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%78th
  Defense33.0%55th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8242nd
  Defense2.7269th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.4%19th
  Defense22.6%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.9%19th
  Defense20.7%59th

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, 2019

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
   ULM
4. L
   BAY
5. W
   TCU
6. W
   WVU
7. W
   TTU
8. L
   OKST
9. L
   OU
10. W
    TEX
11. W
    KU
12. L
    KSU
13. L
    ND

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

Players, 2019

1. Brock PurdyQB488 plays · +0.285 pts/play · 3rd of 228 QBs
   2.61WAR1.85 to 3.48
2. Breece HallRB181 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 58th of 349 RBs
   0.50WAR0.36 to 0.64
3. La'Michael PettwayWR74 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 60th of 439 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.30
4. Charlie KolarTE65 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 2nd of 207 TEs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.30
5. Tarique MiltonWR47 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 159th of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19
6. Connor AssalleyPK14 plays · +0.341 pts/play · 84th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Deshaunte JonesWR72 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 311th of 439 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.14
8. Joe RiveraP47 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 46th of 100 punters
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59759756th of 130Roster talent: 597, 56th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18218250th of 130Recruiting: 182, 50th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%71st of 130Returning production: 57%, 71st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.6+12.624th of 130SP+ rating: +12.6, 24th 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, 2019

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 0.11 of the 0.20 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 IOWAQ4 2:00 4th & 13 at IOWA 39, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−7.4 pts
2. at KSUQ2 9:51 4th & 13 at KSU 26, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
3. at OUQ4 7:37 4th & 13 at OU 13, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. at WVUQ4 12:20 4th & 3 at WVU 28, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs NDQ3 13:29 4th & 1 at ISU 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs UNIQ2 6:07 4th & 1 at UNI 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at OUQ4 10:05 4th & 10 at OU 19, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs TEXQ2 9:04 4th & 1 at ISU 31, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

107th 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

   ULM
4. L

   BAY
5. W

   TCU
6. W

   WVU
7. W

   TTU
8. L

   OKST
9. L

   OU
10. W

    TEX
11. W

    KU
12. L

    KSU
13. L

    ND

What moved it, 2019

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−0.35
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.51

Game by game

• UNIW 29-26 vs UNI94% → 86%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −8: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts −9
• IOWAL 17-18 vs IOWA43% → 16%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• ULMW 72-20 vs ULM88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• BAYL 21-23 at BAY54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position −1
• TCUW 49-24 vs TCU55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts −2
• WVUW 38-14 at WVU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• TTUW 34-24 at TTU71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• OKSTL 27-34 vs OKST78% → 5%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• OUL 41-42 at OU15% → 26%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +12: Scoreboard −6, Possession & field position −2
• TEXW 23-21 vs TEX63% → 94%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• KUW 41-31 vs KU95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• KSUL 17-27 at KSU64% → 4%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −43, Possession & field position +1
• NDL 9-33 vs ND37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −42, Clock −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.