Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2270th
  Defense+0.0564th
• 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.
  Offense46.7%69th
  Defense36.5%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2239th
  Defense+1.1577th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2075th
  Defense−0.1696th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3166th
  Defense+0.3517th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.8%81st
  Defense42.5%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.2%26th
  Defense25.2%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4888th
  Defense2.7368th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.4%88th
  Defense19.0%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.9%89th
  Defense16.5%57th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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. W
   MICH
5. L
   OSU
6. W
   WASH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2026

1. Kamari MoultonRB71 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 15th of 320 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
2. Hank BrownQB106 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 122nd of 192 QBs
   0.13WAR−0.03 to 0.27
3. DJ VonnahmeTE18 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 8th of 164 TEs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
4. Tony DiazWR32 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 131st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
5. Jeremy HecklinskiQB19 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 164th of 192 QBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Addison OstrengaTE9 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 89th of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
7. Xavier WilliamsRB7 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 272nd of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Zach OrtwerthTE4 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72372344th of 138Roster talent: 723, 44th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21421432nd of 138Recruiting: 214, 32nd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%83rd of 136Returning production: 34%, 83rd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.0+13.024th of 138SP+ rating so far: +13.0, 24th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.07 of the 0.07 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 MICHQ4 2:33 4th & 6 at MICH 33, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs ISUQ3 3:45 4th & 2 at IOWA 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at MICHQ4 8:02 4th & 8 at MICH 44, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs ISUQ3 8:05 4th & 2 at IOWA 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at MICHQ1 11:10 4th & 1 at MICH 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs OSUQ1 10:01 4th & 2 at OSU 25, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at WASHQ4 7:12 4th & 6 at WASH 43, up 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs NIUQ2 3:34 4th & 4 at NIU 27, up 27Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

5th of 138 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. W

   MICH
5. L

   OSU
6. W

   WASH

What moved it, 2026

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+1.13
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.02

Game by game

• NIUW 40-0 vs NIU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ISUW 16-13 vs ISU85% → 89%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +2
• UNIW 55-0 vs UNI98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MICHW 20-19 at MICH32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• OSUL 14-31 vs OSU14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• WASHW 41-24 at WASH38% → 98%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +60, Possession & field position −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.