Iowa State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1458th
  Defense+0.0863rd
• 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.
  Offense36.3%7th
  Defense39.4%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.5499th
  Defense+1.2934th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.058th
  Defense+0.0467th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3783rd
  Defense+0.2347th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.9%3rd
  Defense45.2%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.5%36th
  Defense28.1%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.361st
  Defense2.7983rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.8%1st
  Defense20.3%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%58th
  Defense16.5%53rd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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. L
   OHIO
4. W
   OKST
5. L
   OU
6. W
   TCU
7. W
   CIN
8. W
   BAY
9. L
   KU
10. W
    BYU
11. L
    TEX
12. W
    KSU
13. L
    MEM

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

Players, 2023

1. Rocco BechtQB349 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 46th of 250 QBs
   1.52WAR0.66 to 2.41
2. Jayden HigginsWR54 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 82nd of 457 WRs
   0.19WAR0.02 to 0.33
3. Jaylin NoelWR59 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 87th of 457 WRs
   0.18WAR0.03 to 0.33
4. Benjamin BrahmerTE36 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 25th of 212 TEs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
5. Eli SandersRB81 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 180th of 383 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
6. Abu Sama IIIRB67 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 190th of 383 RBs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.21
7. Chase ContrerazPK24 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 20th of 113 kickers
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.17
8. Cartevious NortonRB68 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 254th of 383 RBs
   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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63963960th of 130Roster talent: 639, 60th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419443rd of 130Recruiting: 194, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%42nd of 128Returning production: 64%, 42nd 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+7.537th of 130SP+ rating: +7.5, 37th 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, 2023

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.33 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 MEMQ3 13:52 4th & 10 at MEM 20, up 9Punted; the numbers favored a field goal5.8 pts
2. vs MEMQ3 9:00 4th & 15 at MEM 25, up 16Punted; the numbers favored a field goal4.9 pts
3. at OHIOQ3 4:45 4th & 1 at ISU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.6 pts
4. at BAYQ3 7:13 4th & 1 at BAY 26, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
5. at OHIOQ3 8:15 4th & 2 at OHIO 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
6. at OHIOQ4 7:23 4th & 1 at OHIO 19, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.0 pts
7. at KSUQ4 5:47 4th & 7 at KSU 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
8. vs OKSTQ4 6:40 4th & 1 at ISU 28, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

40th of 133 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. L

   OHIO
4. W

   OKST
5. L

   OU
6. W

   TCU
7. W

   CIN
8. W

   BAY
9. L

   KU
10. W

    BYU
11. L

    TEX
12. W

    KSU
13. L

    MEM

What moved it, 2023

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+1.54
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.19

Game by game

• UNIW 30-9 vs UNI77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• IOWAL 13-20 vs IOWA43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts +2
• OHIOL 7-10 at OHIO53% → 5%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• OKSTW 34-27 vs OKST64% → 98%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• OUL 20-50 at OU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −11
• TCUW 27-14 vs TCU36% → 99%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +1
• CINW 30-10 at CIN43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• BAYW 30-18 at BAY56% → 98%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• KUL 21-28 vs KU54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• BYUW 45-13 at BYU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +31
• TEXL 16-26 vs TEX27% → 3%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −7
• KSUW 42-35 at KSU26% → 95%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• MEML 26-36 vs MEM72% → 98%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +32, 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.