Kansas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0733rd
  Defense+0.2012th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%54th
  Defense47.6%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0911th
  Defense+1.1855th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1167th
  Defense+0.0838th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0524th
  Defense+0.3112th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%65th
  Defense53.3%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.1%48th
  Defense33.6%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0372nd
  Defense2.9929th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%61st
  Defense19.1%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%83rd
  Defense1.8%40th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Kansas 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
   SDAK
2. W
   UTSA
3. W
   LT
4. L
   OKST
5. L
   TCU
6. L
   OU
7. L
   TEX
8. L
   BAY
9. L
   TTU
10. W
    ISU
11. W
    KU
12. W
    WVU
13. L
    ARK

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

Players, 2015

1. Joe HubenerQB377 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 40th of 205 QBs
   1.77WAR1.14 to 2.46
2. Charles JonesRB137 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 93rd of 333 RBs
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.37
3. Nick WalshP58 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 23rd of 92 punters
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.24
4. Justin SilmonRB60 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 177th of 333 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
5. Kody CookWR80 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 201st of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.18
6. Jack CantelePK11 plays · +0.366 pts/play · 93rd of 115 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Kyle KleinWR34 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 274th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Matthew McCranePK4 plays · +0.472 pts/play · 111th of 115 kickers
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.04

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 Kansas 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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50450467th of 128Roster talent: 504, 67th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717751st of 128Recruiting: 177, 51st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%127th of 127Returning production: 13%, 127th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.6+2.669th of 128SP+ rating: +2.6, 69th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Kansas State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.30 of the 0.37 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. vs WVUQ4 0:07 4th & 5 at WVU 23, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−13.8 pts
2. vs LTQ4 2:44 4th & 3 at LT 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.1 pts
3. vs LTQ4 1:24 4th & 1 at KSU 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
4. vs ISUQ4 9:32 4th & 4 at KSU 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at TEXQ4 6:38 4th & 13 at TEX 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
6. at TEXQ3 5:14 4th & 1 at KSU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at OKSTQ4 3:01 4th & 3 at OKST 5, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
8. vs BAYQ2 0:00 4th & 18 at BAY 38, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

62nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   SDAK
2. W

   UTSA
3. W

   LT
4. L

   OKST
5. L

   TCU
6. L

   OU
7. L

   TEX
8. L

   BAY
9. L

   TTU
10. W

    ISU
11. W

    KU
12. W

    WVU
13. L

    ARK

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Kansas 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−0.84
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.60

Game by game

• SDAKW 34-0 vs SDAK74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• UTSAW 30-3 at UTSA91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• LTW 39-33 vs LT75% → 89%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −13
• OKSTL 34-36 at OKST33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• TCUL 45-52 vs TCU23% → 4%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• OUL 0-55 vs OU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33
• TEXL 9-23 at TEX32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• BAYL 24-31 vs BAY9% → 5%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• TTUL 44-59 at TTU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• ISUW 38-35 vs ISU63% → 76%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +13, Clock +1
• KUW 45-14 at KU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• WVUW 24-23 vs WVU31% → 79%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +3
• ARKL 23-45 at ARK13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −17

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

Closest call

KSU 38-35 OU (2020) - Kansas State dropped to a 1.0% win probability before pulling it out.