Kansas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1569th
  Defense+0.1433rd
• 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.
  Offense42.1%42nd
  Defense43.9%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2263rd
  Defense+1.2049th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1171st
  Defense−0.0273rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2471st
  Defense+0.2617th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%57th
  Defense48.6%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.5%28th
  Defense33.2%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8242nd
  Defense2.8155th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.5%7th
  Defense20.2%54th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%30th
  Defense14.7%29th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   CARK
2. W
   CLT
3. L
   VAN
4. W
   BAY
5. L
   TEX
6. L
   TCU
7. L
   OU
8. W
   KU
9. W
   TTU
10. L
    WVU
11. W
    OKST
12. W
    ISU
13. W
    UCLA

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

Players, 2017

1. Alex DeltonQB167 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 93rd of 226 QBs
   0.83WAR0.42 to 1.21
2. Jesse ErtzQB108 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 115th of 226 QBs
   0.53WAR0.34 to 0.72
3. Alex BarnesRB119 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 49th of 352 RBs
   0.41WAR0.31 to 0.50
4. Skylar ThompsonQB141 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 163rd of 226 QBs
   0.28WAR−0.04 to 0.63
5. Matthew McCranePK17 plays · +0.542 pts/play · 12th of 110 kickers
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
6. Isaiah ZuberWR61 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 184th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Justin SilmonRB41 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 244th of 352 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. Dalvin WarmackRB37 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 251st of 352 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  51851867th of 130Roster talent: 518, 67th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17017059th of 130Recruiting: 170, 59th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%20th of 128Returning production: 82%, 20th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.9+10.929th of 128SP+ rating: +10.9, 29th of 128 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, 2017

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.09 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 ISUQ4 13:35 4th & 14 at KSU 28, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored punting2.3 pts
2. vs BAYQ3 7:35 4th & 1 at KSU 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
3. at TEXQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at KSU 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
4. at VANQ4 6:31 4th & 7 at KSU 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
5. at TTUQ3 5:00 4th & 9 at TTU 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
6. vs WVUQ2 11:41 4th & 2 at KSU 48, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
7. vs BAYQ2 0:04 4th & 3 at BAY 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
8. vs ISUQ2 4:41 4th & 2 at KSU 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

35th of 130 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

   CARK
2. W

   CLT
3. L

   VAN
4. W

   BAY
5. L

   TEX
6. L

   TCU
7. L

   OU
8. W

   KU
9. W

   TTU
10. L

    WVU
11. W

    OKST
12. W

    ISU
13. W

    UCLA

What moved it, 2017

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+0.17
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.32
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• CARKW 55-19 vs CARK96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +5
• CLTW 55-7 vs CLT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• VANL 7-14 at VAN60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• BAYW 33-20 vs BAY85% → 98%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• TEXL 34-40 at TEX34% → 7%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts +14
• TCUL 6-26 vs TCU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• OUL 35-42 vs OU14% → 10%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• KUW 30-20 at KU94% → 97%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• TTUW 42-35 at TTU42% → 77%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +20
• WVUL 23-28 vs WVU45% → 9%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Possession & field position −2
• OKSTW 45-40 at OKST10% → 95%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +86: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• ISUW 20-19 vs ISU53% → 94%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +34, Possession & field position +2
• UCLAW 35-17 vs UCLA63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +43, Clock +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.