Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1570th
  Defense0.0083rd
• 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%56th
  Defense41.0%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2262nd
  Defense+1.1180th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0647th
  Defense+0.0269th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2876th
  Defense−0.0188th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%27th
  Defense45.2%61st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.8%89th
  Defense32.5%56th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8041st
  Defense3.0523rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%59th
  Defense15.9%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%83rd
  Defense2.1%61st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 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
   ILST
2. W
   ISU
3. W
   PITT
4. W
   UNT
5. W
   WIS
6. W
   ILL
7. W
   NU
8. W
   MD
9. W
   IU
10. W
    MINN
11. W
    PUR
12. W
    NEB
13. L
    MSU
14. L
    STAN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2015

1. C.J. BeathardQB372 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 31st of 205 QBs
   1.91WAR1.34 to 2.49
2. Jordan CanzeriRB179 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 64th of 333 RBs
   0.30WAR0.17 to 0.45
3. LeShun Daniels Jr.RB101 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 123rd of 333 RBs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.27
4. Matt VandeBergWR82 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 92nd of 411 WRs
   0.19WAR0.06 to 0.31
5. Akrum WadleyRB54 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 157th of 333 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
6. Tevaun SmithWR46 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 161st of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.20
7. Marshall KoehnPK15 plays · +0.430 pts/play · 51st of 115 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. Derrick Mitchell Jr.RB14 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 278th of 333 RBs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57357351st of 128Roster talent: 573, 51st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117158th of 128Recruiting: 171, 58th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  33%33%114th of 127Returning production: 33%, 114th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.3+9.342nd of 128SP+ rating: +9.3, 42nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 IUQ3 4:29 4th & 1 at IOWA 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. vs PITTQ3 5:51 4th & 1 at IOWA 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. at NEBQ4 11:24 4th & 1 at IOWA 15, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. vs MINNQ3 13:11 4th & 1 at IOWA 39, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs ILLQ2 0:15 4th & 1 at ILL 1, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at ISUQ2 13:06 4th & 1 at IOWA 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs ILSTQ2 7:01 4th & 6 at ILST 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at NUQ2 1:44 4th & 2 at IOWA 43, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

2nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Iowa's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   ILST
2. W

   ISU
3. W

   PITT
4. W

   UNT
5. W

   WIS
6. W

   ILL
7. W

   NU
8. W

   MD
9. W

   IU
10. W

    MINN
11. W

    PUR
12. W

    NEB
13. L

    MSU
14. L

    STAN

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Iowa'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+3.27
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.20

Game by game

• ILSTW 31-14 vs ILST74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• ISUW 31-17 at ISU57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• PITTW 27-24 vs PITT53% → 94%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +3
• UNTW 62-16 vs UNT95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• WISW 10-6 at WIS26% → 94%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +56, Clock +4
• ILLW 29-20 vs ILL71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• NUW 40-10 at NU54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• MDW 31-15 vs MD85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• IUW 35-27 at IU70% → 97%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• MINNW 40-35 vs MINN75% → 96%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• PURW 40-20 vs PUR93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• NEBW 28-20 at NEB51% → 97%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• MSUL 13-16 vs MSU35% → 12%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −3
• STANL 16-45 vs STAN27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1

Points of win probability, from Iowa's side.

Closest call

NU 14-40 IOWA (2024) - Iowa dropped to a 3.7% win probability before pulling it out.