Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0737th
  Defense−0.0388th
• 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.
  Offense39.4%15th
  Defense41.8%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1635th
  Defense+1.0691st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.087th
  Defense+0.0166th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2575th
  Defense−0.0594th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.1%19th
  Defense45.8%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%24th
  Defense33.2%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7231st
  Defense2.8749th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%29th
  Defense18.8%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%28th
  Defense18.4%74th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   WYO
2. W
   ISU
3. W
   UNT
4. L
   PSU
5. L
   MSU
6. W
   ILL
7. L
   NU
8. W
   MINN
9. W
   OSU
10. L
    WIS
11. L
    PUR
12. W
    NEB
13. W
    BC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2017

1. Nate StanleyQB356 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 45th of 226 QBs
   1.45WAR0.78 to 2.14
2. Akrum WadleyRB268 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 7th of 352 RBs
   0.74WAR0.52 to 0.96
3. James ButlerRB85 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 146th of 352 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.29
4. Nick EasleyWR70 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 112th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
5. Matt VandeBergWR47 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Miguel RecinosPK11 plays · +0.393 pts/play · 74th of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. Noah FantTE49 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 4th of 199 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.03 to 0.12
8. T.J. HockensonTE31 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 6th of 199 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59359349th of 130Roster talent: 593, 49th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917949th of 130Recruiting: 179, 49th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  30%30%113th of 128Returning production: 30%, 113th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.8+9.835th of 128SP+ rating: +9.8, 35th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.13 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 OSUQ3 8:14 4th & 2 at OSU 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs OSUQ3 12:51 4th & 1 at IOWA 13, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. at BCQ2 4:59 4th & 4 at BC 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at MSUQ4 9:08 4th & 2 at MSU 25, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at MSUQ4 4:02 4th & 5 at IOWA 12, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at MSUQ3 14:57 4th & 8 at MSU 23, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs ILLQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at IOWA 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs PURQ2 15:00 4th & 20 at PUR 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

22nd of 130 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

   WYO
2. W

   ISU
3. W

   UNT
4. L

   PSU
5. L

   MSU
6. W

   ILL
7. L

   NU
8. W

   MINN
9. W

   OSU
10. L

    WIS
11. L

    PUR
12. W

    NEB
13. W

    BC

What moved it, 2017

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+1.17
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.31
• Timeouts+0.37
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.13

Game by game

• WYOW 24-3 vs WYO79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• ISUW 44-41 at ISU52% → 88%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +18
• UNTW 31-14 vs UNT90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• PSUL 19-21 vs PSU14% → 7%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −26, Clock −2
• MSUL 10-17 at MSU38% → 6%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position −3
• ILLW 45-16 vs ILL84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +18
• NUL 10-17 at NU38% → 11%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +16
• MINNW 17-10 vs MINN68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• OSUW 55-24 vs OSU6% → 100%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +94: Scoreboard +65, Timeouts −1
• WISL 14-38 at WIS20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24
• PURL 15-24 vs PUR63% → 4%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• NEBW 56-14 at NEB62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position +1
• BCW 27-20 at BC55% → 93%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position +3

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.