Iowa State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1667th
  Defense+0.0180th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%69th
  Defense39.4%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2138th
  Defense+1.1973rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1470th
  Defense−0.0590th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2567th
  Defense+0.1553rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%72nd
  Defense44.6%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.7%50th
  Defense28.7%55th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0057th
  Defense2.7964th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%59th
  Defense21.2%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%60th
  Defense16.7%66th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   KSU
2. W
   SDAK
3. W
   IOWA
4. W
   ARST
5. W
   ARIZ
6. L
   CIN
7. L
   COLO
8. L
   BYU
9. L
   ASU
10. W
    TCU
11. W
    KU
12. W
    OKST

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

Players, 2025

1. Rocco BechtQB340 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 67th of 231 QBs
   1.22WAR0.56 to 1.87
2. Carson HansenRB184 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 4th of 365 RBs
   0.48WAR0.38 to 0.59
3. Abu Sama IIIRB118 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 154th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
4. Chase SowellWR53 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 110th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.28
5. Benjamin BrahmerTE32 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 15th of 213 TEs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
6. Brett EskildsenWR41 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 212th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.16
7. Kyle KonrardyPK15 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 66th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Tyler PerkinsP40 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 27th of 100 punters
   0.07WAR−0.01 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64964971st of 134Roster talent: 649, 71st of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020044th of 134Recruiting: 200, 44th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%22nd of 132Returning production: 60%, 22nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.9+9.933rd of 134SP+ rating: +9.9, 33rd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.12 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 BYUQ4 8:14 4th & 10 at BYU 23, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.9 pts
2. vs IOWAQ4 1:52 4th & 7 at IOWA 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
3. at COLOQ4 3:48 4th & 8 at COLO 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
4. vs KUQ2 6:43 4th & 4 at KU 37, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
5. vs BYUQ4 1:14 4th & 26 at BYU 26, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.0 pts
6. vs IOWAQ4 13:27 4th & 5 at IOWA 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
7. vs ARIZQ1 1:24 4th & 2 at ARIZ 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
8. at TCUQ2 9:09 4th & 3 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

62nd of 136 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

   KSU
2. W

   SDAK
3. W

   IOWA
4. W

   ARST
5. W

   ARIZ
6. L

   CIN
7. L

   COLO
8. L

   BYU
9. L

   ASU
10. W

    TCU
11. W

    KU
12. W

    OKST

What moved it, 2025

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+0.52
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.14
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.58

Game by game

• KSUW 24-21 vs KSU41% → 94%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• SDAKW 55-7 vs SDAK89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• IOWAW 16-13 vs IOWA61% → 96%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• ARSTW 24-16 at ARST92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +3
• ARIZW 39-14 vs ARIZ62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• CINL 30-38 at CIN48% → 9%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −2
• COLOL 17-24 at COLO65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts +5
• BYUL 27-41 vs BYU60% → 1%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• ASUL 19-24 vs ASU71% → 4%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• TCUW 20-17 at TCU31% → 87%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4
• KUW 38-14 vs KU63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• OKSTW 20-13 at OKST86% → 92%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1

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.