Jacksonville State

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+0.0625th
  Defense−0.0393rd
• 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.
  Offense42.3%52nd
  Defense35.9%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1514th
  Defense+1.2933rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1156th
  Defense−0.1297th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0715th
  Defense+0.2055th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%53rd
  Defense41.9%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.1%45th
  Defense24.7%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0440th
  Defense2.4497th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%43rd
  Defense22.4%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%58th
  Defense17.6%67th

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 Jacksonville State 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
   UTEP
2. W
   ETSU
3. L
   CCU
4. W
   EMU
5. W
   SHSU
6. W
   MTSU
7. L
   LIB
8. W
   WKU
9. W
   FIU
10. L
    SC
11. W
    LT
12. L
    NMSU
13. W
    UL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Jacksonville State.

Players, 2023

1. Zion WebbQB332 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 74th of 250 QBs
   1.24WAR0.62 to 1.83
2. Logan SmothersQB150 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 138th of 250 QBs
   0.43WAR0.15 to 0.73
3. Malik JacksonRB129 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 104th of 383 RBs
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.35
4. Perry CarterWR45 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 68th of 457 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.33
5. Anwar LewisRB86 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 140th of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.25
6. Jack DawsonP56 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 12th of 103 punters
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.27
7. Ron WigginsRB77 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 159th of 383 RBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.23
8. Sean BrownTE23 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 55th of 212 TEs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15

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 Jacksonville State'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.
  227227129th of 130Roster talent: 227, 129th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  1818130th of 130Recruiting: 18, 130th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.6−1.669th of 130SP+ rating: −1.6, 69th 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 Jacksonville State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.22 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 SCQ3 8:28 4th & 14 at JXST 30, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−2.9 pts
2. at SHSUQ3 0:00 4th & 2 at JXST 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs EMUQ2 8:15 4th & 1 at JXST 30, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs UTEPQ4 10:04 4th & 3 at JXST 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs WKUQ3 3:25 4th & 2 at JXST 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at CCUQ3 13:00 4th & 17 at CCU 38, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. at CCUQ4 4:33 4th & 6 at CCU 10, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
8. vs UTEPQ3 1:21 4th & 2 at UTEP 26, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

6th of 133 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Jacksonville State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UTEP
2. W

   ETSU
3. L

   CCU
4. W

   EMU
5. W

   SHSU
6. W

   MTSU
7. L

   LIB
8. W

   WKU
9. W

   FIU
10. L

    SC
11. W

    LT
12. L

    NMSU
13. W

    UL

What moved it, 2023

Every game starts at Jacksonville State'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+2.35
• Possession & field position−0.12
• Clock−0.40
• Timeouts+0.47
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• UTEPW 17-14 vs UTEP43% → 96%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• ETSUW 49-3 vs ETSU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• CCUL 16-30 at CCU15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• EMUW 21-0 vs EMU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +1
• SHSUW 35-28 at SHSU61% → 78%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +19
• MTSUW 45-30 at MTSU37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• LIBL 13-31 vs LIB28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• WKUW 20-17 vs WKU29% → 95%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −3
• FIUW 41-16 at FIU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• SCL 28-38 at SC11% → 3%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16
• LTW 56-17 vs LT66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +35
• NMSUL 17-20 at NMSU43% → 4%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• ULW 34-31 at UL46% → 72%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +40, Clock −23

Points of win probability, from Jacksonville State's side.

Closest call

JXST 20-17 FSU (2021) - Jacksonville State dropped to a 3.1% win probability before pulling it out.