Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1457th
  Defense−0.0391st
• 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.
  Offense42.1%36th
  Defense41.1%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2773rd
  Defense+1.0398th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0121st
  Defense+0.0559th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3080th
  Defense−0.0998th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%20th
  Defense47.1%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.4%83rd
  Defense27.1%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9045th
  Defense2.8259th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%76th
  Defense16.6%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.8%86th
  Defense17.6%70th

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, 2018

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
   NIU
2. W
   ISU
3. W
   UNI
4. L
   WIS
5. W
   MINN
6. W
   IU
7. W
   MD
8. L
   PSU
9. L
   PUR
10. L
    NU
11. W
    ILL
12. W
    NEB
13. W
    MSST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2018

1. Nate StanleyQB385 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 29th of 225 QBs
   1.89WAR1.22 to 2.50
2. Mekhi SargentRB148 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 75th of 351 RBs
   0.43WAR0.32 to 0.53
3. Toren YoungRB102 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 122nd of 351 RBs
   0.34WAR0.26 to 0.40
4. Ivory Kelly-MartinRB102 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 167th of 351 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.33
5. T.J. HockensonTE60 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 1st of 204 TEs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.35
6. Noah FantTE53 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 5th of 204 TEs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.24
7. Miguel RecinosPK18 plays · +0.412 pts/play · 25th of 112 kickers
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
8. Brandon SmithWR42 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 180th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61561542nd of 130Roster talent: 615, 42nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18718744th of 130Recruiting: 187, 44th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%21st of 129Returning production: 83%, 21st of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.3+13.323rd of 130SP+ rating: +13.3, 23rd 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, 2018

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 0.09 of the 0.14 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 MSSTQ4 5:51 4th & 2 at MSST 22, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs MSSTQ4 2:22 4th & 2 at IOWA 24, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs WISQ4 11:25 4th & 3 at IOWA 19, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs NEBQ4 0:42 4th & 8 at NEB 37, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
5. at MINNQ4 9:20 4th & 2 at MINN 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs NUQ3 13:50 4th & 6 at NU 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs MSSTQ2 10:02 4th & 3 at MSST 26, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs ISUQ3 13:27 4th & 4 at ISU 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

38th 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

   NIU
2. W

   ISU
3. W

   UNI
4. L

   WIS
5. W

   MINN
6. W

   IU
7. W

   MD
8. L

   PSU
9. L

   PUR
10. L

    NU
11. W

    ILL
12. W

    NEB
13. W

    MSST

What moved it, 2018

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+1.06
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.34

Game by game

• NIUW 33-7 vs NIU77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• ISUW 13-3 vs ISU62% → 97%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• UNIW 38-14 vs UNI93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• WISL 17-28 vs WIS41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• MINNW 48-31 at MINN70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• IUW 42-16 at IU64% → 87%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• MDW 23-0 vs MD74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• PSUL 24-30 at PSU36% → 11%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• PURL 36-38 at PUR44% → 7%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position +1
• NUL 10-14 vs NU79% → 6%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −55, Clock −4
• ILLW 63-0 at ILL86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20
• NEBW 31-28 vs NEB74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +1
• MSSTW 27-22 vs MSST30% → 95%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +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.