Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0938th
  Defense0.0088th
• 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.
  Offense45.0%63rd
  Defense40.6%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.088th
  Defense+1.0099th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0336th
  Defense−0.0482nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1947th
  Defense+0.0484th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.0%63rd
  Defense48.8%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.2%72nd
  Defense24.7%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8544th
  Defense2.9542nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.1%31st
  Defense17.4%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.2%53rd
  Defense19.2%39th

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, 2019

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
   RUTG
3. W
   ISU
4. W
   MTSU
5. L
   MICH
6. L
   PSU
7. W
   PUR
8. W
   NU
9. L
   WIS
10. W
    MINN
11. W
    ILL
12. W
    NEB
13. W
    USC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2019

1. Nate StanleyQB424 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 33rd of 228 QBs
   1.57WAR0.85 to 2.29
2. Mekhi SargentRB123 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 116th of 349 RBs
   0.35WAR0.27 to 0.46
3. Tyler GoodsonRB120 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 144th of 349 RBs
   0.30WAR0.21 to 0.38
4. Keith DuncanPK28 plays · +0.507 pts/play · 1st of 114 kickers
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.33
5. Toren YoungRB70 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 177th of 349 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.28
6. Ihmir Smith-MarsetteWR76 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 84th of 439 WRs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.27
7. Brandon SmithWR44 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 158th of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
8. Nico RagainiWR71 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 273rd of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.16

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63863843rd of 130Roster talent: 638, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419442nd of 130Recruiting: 194, 42nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%63rd of 130Returning production: 61%, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.7+16.720th of 130SP+ rating: +16.7, 20th 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, 2019

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 of the 0.28 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 NEBQ4 4:39 4th & 6 at NEB 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−6.1 pts
2. at NEBQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at IOWA 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
3. vs ILLQ4 14:08 4th & 1 at ILL 6, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. vs ILLQ4 10:52 4th & 1 at IOWA 25, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
5. at ISUQ3 12:19 4th & 1 at IOWA 36, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
6. vs MINNQ4 1:52 4th & 5 at MINN 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
7. at NUQ4 9:58 4th & 1 at NU 10, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at WISQ3 12:58 4th & 2 at IOWA 43, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

26th 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

   M-OH
2. W

   RUTG
3. W

   ISU
4. W

   MTSU
5. L

   MICH
6. L

   PSU
7. W

   PUR
8. W

   NU
9. L

   WIS
10. W

    MINN
11. W

    ILL
12. W

    NEB
13. W

    USC

What moved it, 2019

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+1.56
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.39

Game by game

• M-OHW 38-14 vs M-OH95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• RUTGW 30-0 vs RUTG89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• ISUW 18-17 at ISU57% → 84%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• MTSUW 48-3 vs MTSU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• MICHL 3-10 at MICH36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• PSUL 12-17 vs PSU42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• PURW 26-20 vs PUR89% → 97%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• NUW 20-0 at NU75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• WISL 22-24 at WIS30% → 7%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• MINNW 23-19 vs MINN55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +3
• ILLW 19-10 vs ILL86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• NEBW 27-24 at NEB58% → 95%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• USCW 49-24 vs USC52% → 99%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +45, 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.