Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.101st
  Defense−0.0798th
• 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.
  Offense32.6%1st
  Defense34.7%96th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.061st
  Defense+1.0899th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.112nd
  Defense−0.0994th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.015th
  Defense+0.0495th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.5%1st
  Defense40.1%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.
  Offense21.1%2nd
  Defense25.4%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.481st
  Defense2.8678th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%10th
  Defense14.4%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.7%10th
  Defense15.7%38th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   USU
2. W
   ISU
3. W
   WMU
4. L
   PSU
5. W
   MSU
6. W
   PUR
7. W
   WIS
8. L
   MINN
9. W
   NU
10. W
    RUTG
11. W
    ILL
12. W
    NEB
13. L
    MICH
14. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2023

1. Leshon WilliamsRB173 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 52nd of 383 RBs
   0.36WAR0.21 to 0.51
2. Tory TaylorP86 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 1st of 103 punters
   0.35WAR0.21 to 0.47
3. Kaleb JohnsonRB111 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 88th of 383 RBs
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.36
4. Cade McNamaraQB91 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 183rd of 250 QBs
   0.20WAR0.07 to 0.38
5. Erick AllTE20 plays · +0.284 pts/play · 48th of 212 TEs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
6. Jaziun PattersonRB47 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 229th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Drew StevensPK21 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 31st of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Addison OstrengaTE26 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 58th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69369341st of 130Roster talent: 693, 41st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20920931st of 130Recruiting: 209, 31st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%88th of 128Returning production: 41%, 88th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.8+5.845th of 130SP+ rating: +5.8, 45th 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, 2023

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 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.27 of the 0.32 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 WISQ4 13:08 4th & 1 at WIS 31, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.5 pts
2. at NEBQ4 2:18 4th & 3 at IOWA 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
3. vs MINNQ4 2:06 4th & 10 at IOWA 41, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
4. vs ILLQ3 11:22 4th & 1 at IOWA 17, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
5. at WISQ4 10:06 4th & 3 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
6. vs MINNQ2 6:52 4th & 1 at IOWA 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at NUQ2 3:32 4th & 4 at NU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at ISUQ4 1:54 4th & 1 at IOWA 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

11th of 133 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

   USU
2. W

   ISU
3. W

   WMU
4. L

   PSU
5. W

   MSU
6. W

   PUR
7. W

   WIS
8. L

   MINN
9. W

   NU
10. W

    RUTG
11. W

    ILL
12. W

    NEB
13. L

    MICH
14. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2023

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+2.30
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts+0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• USUW 24-14 vs USU94% → 97%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• ISUW 20-13 at ISU57% → 97%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts −2
• WMUW 41-10 vs WMU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• PSUL 0-31 at PSU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• MSUW 26-16 vs MSU78% → 97%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• PURW 20-14 vs PUR59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• WISW 15-6 at WIS27% → 97%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +59, Clock +4
• MINNL 10-12 vs MINN60% → 7%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• NUW 10-7 at NU59% → 86%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• RUTGW 22-0 vs RUTG50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +1
• ILLW 15-13 vs ILL60% → 93%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• NEBW 13-10 at NEB46% → 95%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• MICHL 0-26 vs MICH7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• TENNL 0-35 at TENN30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31

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.