Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0732nd
  Defense+0.0572nd
• 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.
  Offense42.2%37th
  Defense40.7%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.089th
  Defense+1.0596th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1158th
  Defense+0.0173rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0523rd
  Defense+0.1263rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%44th
  Defense46.8%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.
  Offense29.8%20th
  Defense27.8%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9649th
  Defense3.0537th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%62nd
  Defense13.7%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%74th
  Defense15.4%37th

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, 2016

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
   M-OH
2. W
   ISU
3. L
   NDSU
4. W
   RUTG
5. L
   NU
6. W
   MINN
7. W
   PUR
8. L
   WIS
9. L
   PSU
10. W
    MICH
11. W
    ILL
12. W
    NEB
13. L
    FLA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2016

1. C.J. BeathardQB303 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 76th of 218 QBs
   1.11WAR0.69 to 1.54
2. Akrum WadleyRB169 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 26th of 347 RBs
   0.66WAR0.50 to 0.81
3. LeShun Daniels Jr.RB182 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 57th of 347 RBs
   0.49WAR0.32 to 0.65
4. Riley McCarronWR54 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 149th of 417 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
5. Jerminic SmithWR33 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 326th of 417 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
6. Ron ColuzziP60 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 74th of 82 punters
   0.05WAR−0.03 to 0.15
7. George KittleTE29 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 18th of 195 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09
8. Matt VandeBergWR17 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 356th of 417 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55955955th of 128Roster talent: 559, 55th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417453rd of 128Recruiting: 174, 53rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%31st of 128Returning production: 84%, 31st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.3+10.337th of 128SP+ rating: +10.3, 37th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.16 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 ILLQ4 13:08 4th & 14 at ILL 23, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal2.0 pts
2. vs WISQ4 0:43 4th & 7 at WIS 7, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
3. at RUTGQ3 3:03 4th & 1 at IOWA 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
4. vs NEBQ3 3:09 4th & 1 at IOWA 43, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
5. at MINNQ4 2:59 4th & 3 at IOWA 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
6. at MINNQ2 11:57 4th & 4 at MINN 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs WISQ3 1:05 4th & 4 at IOWA 40, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
8. at PSUQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at IOWA 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

77th 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

   M-OH
2. W

   ISU
3. L

   NDSU
4. W

   RUTG
5. L

   NU
6. W

   MINN
7. W

   PUR
8. L

   WIS
9. L

   PSU
10. W

    MICH
11. W

    ILL
12. W

    NEB
13. L

    FLA

What moved it, 2016

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 →

• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.28

Game by game

• M-OHW 45-21 vs M-OH97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• ISUW 42-3 vs ISU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• NDSUL 21-23 vs NDSU86% → 5%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• RUTGW 14-7 at RUTG82% → 95%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +29, Clock +2
• NUL 31-38 vs NU80% → 6%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −55, Clock −4
• MINNW 14-7 at MINN51% → 97%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• PURW 49-35 at PUR82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• WISL 9-17 vs WIS47% → 3%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• PSUL 14-41 at PSU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33
• MICHW 14-13 vs MICH11% → 94%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position +2
• ILLW 28-0 at ILL77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• NEBW 40-10 vs NEB53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −1
• FLAL 3-30 vs FLA47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2

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.