Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.102nd
  Defense−0.1399th
• 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.
  Offense35.7%5th
  Defense34.5%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1518th
  Defense+0.9999th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.105th
  Defense−0.0694th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.013rd
  Defense−0.0799th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.5%14th
  Defense41.3%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.6%4th
  Defense21.6%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.452nd
  Defense2.5795th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.6%2nd
  Defense17.5%54th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%23rd
  Defense17.4%66th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   SDST
2. L
   ISU
3. W
   NEV
4. W
   RUTG
5. L
   MICH
6. L
   ILL
7. L
   OSU
8. W
   NU
9. W
   PUR
10. W
    WIS
11. W
    MINN
12. L
    NEB
13. W
    UK

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2022

1. Spencer PetrasQB250 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 121st of 234 QBs
   0.50WAR0.04 to 0.96
2. Kaleb JohnsonRB114 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 67th of 384 RBs
   0.37WAR0.27 to 0.47
3. Sam LaPortaTE57 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 4th of 214 TEs
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.36
4. Leshon WilliamsRB87 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 161st of 384 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
5. Tory TaylorP54 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 7th of 102 punters
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. Luke LacheyTE28 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 10th of 214 TEs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
7. Gavin WilliamsRB32 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 282nd of 384 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
8. Nico RagainiWR31 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 340th of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68268236th of 129Roster talent: 682, 36th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820831st of 129Recruiting: 208, 31st of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  92%92%2nd of 128Returning production: 92%, 2nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.7+12.726th of 129SP+ rating: +12.7, 26th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.27 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 MINNQ4 0:28 4th & 1 at MINN 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−9.6 pts
2. vs SDSTQ4 8:14 4th & 4 at SDST 44, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. vs SDSTQ4 0:43 4th & 2 at SDST 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
4. at UKQ2 7:30 4th & 1 at IOWA 28, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs NEVQ3 12:11 4th & 1 at IOWA 18, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs NEVQ3 10:02 4th & 1 at IOWA 18, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at MINNQ3 4:25 4th & 20 at MINN 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs SDSTQ2 12:43 4th & 3 at SDST 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

37th of 131 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

   SDST
2. L

   ISU
3. W

   NEV
4. W

   RUTG
5. L

   MICH
6. L

   ILL
7. L

   OSU
8. W

   NU
9. W

   PUR
10. W

    WIS
11. W

    MINN
12. L

    NEB
13. W

    UK

What moved it, 2022

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+1.26
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.43

Game by game

• SDSTW 7-3 vs SDST76% → 88%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +2
• ISUL 7-10 vs ISU66% → 27%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position +5
• NEVW 27-0 vs NEV96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• RUTGW 27-10 at RUTG71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• MICHL 14-27 vs MICH22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• ILLL 6-9 at ILL43% → 10%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −3
• OSUL 10-54 at OSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• NUW 33-13 vs NU81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position −1
• PURW 24-3 at PUR43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +56, Clock +1
• WISW 24-10 vs WIS48% → 99%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +1
• MINNW 13-10 at MINN45% → 95%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• NEBL 17-24 vs NEB79% → 4%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• UKW 21-0 at UK58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +46, 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.