Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1256th
  Defense−0.0188th
• 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.
  Offense44.5%67th
  Defense38.5%79th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.123rd
  Defense+1.1393rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1986th
  Defense+0.0267th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1234th
  Defense+0.0486th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.1%76th
  Defense44.5%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.3%18th
  Defense24.3%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2990th
  Defense2.9245th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%90th
  Defense18.7%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.2%96th
  Defense16.9%69th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UALB
2. L
   ISU
3. W
   MASS
4. W
   RUTG
5. L
   IU
6. W
   WIS
7. W
   PSU
8. W
   MINN
9. L
   ORE
10. L
    USC
11. W
    MSU
12. W
    NEB
13. W
    VAN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2025

1. Mark GronowskiQB309 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 55th of 231 QBs
   1.33WAR0.68 to 1.90
2. Kamari MoultonRB178 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 18th of 365 RBs
   0.40WAR0.30 to 0.49
3. DJ VonnahmeTE38 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 17th of 213 TEs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
4. Drew StevensPK20 plays · +0.308 pts/play · 18th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
5. Jacob GillWR32 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 223rd of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
6. Jaziun PattersonRB38 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 261st of 365 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
7. Rhys DakinP34 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 57th of 100 punters
   0.03WAR−0.05 to 0.11
8. Kaden WetjenWR13 plays · +0.037 pts/play · 410th of 451 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71071042nd of 134Roster talent: 710, 42nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21121133rd of 134Recruiting: 211, 33rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%44th of 132Returning production: 49%, 44th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.7+19.712th of 134SP+ rating: +19.7, 12th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.17 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 VANQ3 3:54 4th & 1 at VAN 29, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. vs PSUQ2 1:50 4th & 1 at IOWA 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs IUQ3 3:41 4th & 3 at IU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs OREQ4 12:39 4th & 5 at ORE 40, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at ISUQ3 4:28 4th & 2 at ISU 18, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at USCQ3 7:47 4th & 3 at midfield, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at VANQ2 14:54 4th & 1 at IOWA 31, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at ISUQ2 12:53 4th & 2 at ISU 12, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

27th of 136 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

   UALB
2. L

   ISU
3. W

   MASS
4. W

   RUTG
5. L

   IU
6. W

   WIS
7. W

   PSU
8. W

   MINN
9. L

   ORE
10. L

    USC
11. W

    MSU
12. W

    NEB
13. W

    VAN

What moved it, 2025

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+1.38
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.08

Game by game

• UALBW 34-7 vs UALB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• ISUL 13-16 at ISU39% → 4%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• MASSW 47-7 vs MASS99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• RUTGW 38-28 at RUTG52% → 97%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• IUL 15-20 vs IU28% → 4%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• WISW 37-0 at WIS63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +41
• PSUW 25-24 vs PSU53% → 88%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −7
• MINNW 41-3 vs MINN70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• OREL 16-18 vs ORE35% → 7%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• USCL 21-26 at USC30% → 7%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −4
• MSUW 20-17 vs MSU87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +1
• NEBW 40-16 at NEB61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• VANW 34-27 at VAN37% → 95%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +55, Clock +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.