Iowa State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0216th
  Defense+0.0281st
• 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.
  Offense39.1%25th
  Defense39.9%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2029th
  Defense+1.0598th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.115th
  Defense−0.0389th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2351st
  Defense+0.2048th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.7%11th
  Defense47.4%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%57th
  Defense23.3%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.553rd
  Defense2.8976th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%10th
  Defense20.1%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%59th
  Defense17.0%62nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

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

Players, 2022

1. Hunter DekkersQB461 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 53rd of 234 QBs
   1.36WAR0.51 to 2.42
2. Xavier HutchinsonWR111 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 24th of 455 WRs
   0.27WAR0.08 to 0.50
3. Jirehl BrockRB105 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 145th of 384 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.29
4. Cartevious NortonRB75 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 200th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
5. Dimitri StanleyWR38 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 172nd of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Tyler PerkinsP45 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 24th of 102 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
7. Jaylin NoelWR59 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 210th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.19
8. DeShawn HanikaTE15 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 78th of 214 TEs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59059064th of 129Roster talent: 590, 64th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19119146th of 129Recruiting: 191, 46th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%106th of 128Returning production: 31%, 106th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.3+5.353rd of 129SP+ rating: +5.3, 53rd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.28 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 OKSTQ3 2:46 4th & 1 at ISU 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. at OKSTQ4 11:42 4th & 1 at ISU 26, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
3. vs KSUQ3 0:48 4th & 2 at KSU 25, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs KSUQ4 5:37 4th & 6 at KSU 45, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
5. vs OUQ4 10:29 4th & 12 at OU 15, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
6. at IOWAQ4 0:38 4th & 4 at IOWA 27, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.3 pts
7. vs OUQ4 4:36 4th & 3 at OU 20, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
8. at KUQ4 1:33 4th & 3 at KU 36, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

125th of 131 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. W

   IOWA
3. W

   OHIO
4. L

   BAY
5. L

   KU
6. L

   KSU
7. L

   TEX
8. L

   OU
9. W

   WVU
10. L

    OKST
11. L

    TTU
12. L

    TCU

What moved it, 2022

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−2.15
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.14

Game by game

• SEMOW 42-10 vs SEMO98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• IOWAW 10-7 at IOWA34% → 73%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position −5
• OHIOW 43-10 vs OHIO92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• BAYL 24-31 vs BAY58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• KUL 11-14 at KU59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −3
• KSUL 9-10 vs KSU47% → 4%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• TEXL 21-24 at TEX12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• OUL 13-27 vs OU44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• WVUW 31-14 vs WVU69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −2
• OKSTL 14-20 at OKST50% → 4%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• TTUL 10-14 vs TTU56% → 22%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• TCUL 14-62 at TCU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25

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.