Kansas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1979th
  Defense+0.0671st
• 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.
  Offense48.7%91st
  Defense44.2%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1017th
  Defense+1.1375th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2493rd
  Defense−0.0178th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1543rd
  Defense+0.1262nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.9%94th
  Defense49.6%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.2%76th
  Defense32.3%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1675th
  Defense2.7767th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%44th
  Defense22.7%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%56th
  Defense16.9%59th

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, 2016

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. L
   STAN
2. W
   FAU
3. W
   MOST
4. L
   WVU
5. W
   TTU
6. L
   OU
7. W
   TEX
8. W
   ISU
9. L
   OKST
10. W
    BAY
11. W
    KU
12. W
    TCU
13. W
    TA&M

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

Players, 2016

1. Jesse ErtzQB398 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 13th of 218 QBs
   2.21WAR1.44 to 2.90
2. Charles JonesRB111 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 88th of 347 RBs
   0.37WAR0.27 to 0.48
3. Justin SilmonRB73 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 174th of 347 RBs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.29
4. Nick WalshP41 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 46th of 82 punters
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.21
5. Byron PringleWR66 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 156th of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22
6. Joe HubenerQB33 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 189th of 218 QBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
7. Dominique HeathWR56 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 220th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
8. Matthew McCranePK11 plays · +0.389 pts/play · 74th of 116 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50550570th of 128Roster talent: 505, 70th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17017058th of 128Recruiting: 170, 58th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%61st of 128Returning production: 68%, 61st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.2+8.245th of 128SP+ rating: +8.2, 45th 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, 2016

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 0.13 of the 0.18 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 TA&MQ3 10:56 4th & 1 at TA&M 46, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.1 pts
2. vs OKSTQ2 1:47 4th & 1 at KSU 48, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.8 pts
3. vs OKSTQ4 8:16 4th & 1 at OKST 48, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
4. vs TEXQ2 4:23 4th & 2 at TEX 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
5. at STANQ4 2:20 4th & 10 at STAN 15, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.4 pts
6. at TCUQ3 7:04 4th & 3 at midfield, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
7. vs OKSTQ3 12:14 4th & 1 at KSU 24, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
8. at STANQ4 0:36 4th & 16 at STAN 32, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

14th 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. L

   STAN
2. W

   FAU
3. W

   MOST
4. L

   WVU
5. W

   TTU
6. L

   OU
7. W

   TEX
8. W

   ISU
9. L

   OKST
10. W

    BAY
11. W

    KU
12. W

    TCU
13. W

    TA&M

What moved it, 2016

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+1.64
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• STANL 13-26 at STAN14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• FAUW 63-7 vs FAU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• MOSTW 35-0 vs MOST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• WVUL 16-17 at WVU34% → 8%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position +1
• TTUW 44-38 vs TTU70% → 88%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• OUL 17-38 at OU16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20
• TEXW 24-21 vs TEX49% → 95%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• ISUW 31-26 at ISU65% → 95%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• OKSTL 37-43 vs OKST55% → 15%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −44, Clock −4
• BAYW 42-21 at BAY52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• KUW 34-19 vs KU93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12
• TCUW 30-6 at TCU38% → 99%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• TA&MW 33-28 vs TA&M42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2

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.