Try the model

Kansas State

Wildcats · Big 12 · FBS
8-52021 · 4-5 in conference
SP+
+14.2 (#21)
FPI
+7.2 (#35)
SRS
+8.6 (#28)
Resume
#53

Next game

KU
vs Kansas
Sat, Oct 17 · 12:00 PM EDT
Projected score
KSU31
KU24
Win chance
66%
KSU 66%KU 34%
Market: KSU favored by 4.5 · Points model v7, built without betting lines. A model's view, not betting advice.Full projection →

Advanced stats

CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →

Profile vs. FBS, 2021
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.25, 81st percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 47.7%, 85th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.22, 32nd percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.22, 81st percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.35, 84th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 55.4%, 94th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 29.3%, 34th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.37, 84th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 13.4%, 81st percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 16.7%, 41st percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.14, 48th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 40.6%, 64th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.33, 26th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.08, 62nd percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.29, 26th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 45.2%, 77th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 30.8%, 50th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.84, 71st percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 15.2%, 29th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 18.0%, 75th percentile among FBS

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.
  • 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.
  • Explosiveness
    Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  • Rushing EPA
    EPA per designed run.
  • Passing EPA
    EPA per pass play.
  • Standard downs
    Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  • Passing downs
    Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  • Line yards
    Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  • Stuff rate
    Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  • Havoc
    Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.

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.

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2021
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense+0.4451st of 130
Defense−0.09allowed48th of 130
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense+0.3654th of 130
Defense−0.18allowed31st of 130
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense−0.194.2 pts/trip75th of 130
Defense−0.483.5 pts/trip allowed42nd of 130
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.297th of 130
Defense0.93opponents30th of 130

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
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

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

Players

YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →

Players, 2021
The quarterback
Skylar Thompson: 1.58 WAR (90% interval 1.03 to 2.11)
56th of 219 FBS QBs in WAR · 13th of 168 in value per play

Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.

  1. Skylar ThompsonQB250 plays · +0.337 pts/play · 56th of 219 QBs1.58WAR1.03 to 2.11
  2. Deuce VaughnRB222 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 21st of 387 RBs0.80WAR0.55 to 1.01
  3. Will HowardQB57 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 180th of 219 QBs0.19WAR0.05 to 0.33
  4. Joe ErvinRB46 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 232nd of 387 RBs0.18WAR0.13 to 0.22
  5. Ty ZentnerP36 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 18th of 101 punters0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
  6. Phillip BrooksWR50 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 126th of 474 WRs0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
  7. Malik KnowlesWR52 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 177th of 474 WRs0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
  8. Jax DineenFB3 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 372nd of 387 RBs0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
Every player (12)
  1. Daniel ImatorbhebheTE12 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02
  2. Chabastin TaylorWR1 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 463rd of 474 WRs0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00
  3. Sammy WheelerTE19 plays · −0.000 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.02
  4. Nick LennersTE7 plays · −0.030 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
1.76WAR
55th of 130
Running backs
0.98WAR
44th of 130
Receivers
0.28WAR
99th of 130
Tight ends
0.00WAR
38th of 130
Kicker
0.00WAR
114th of 130
Punter
0.17WAR
18th of 130
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
+0.05/game
62nd of 130
Front seven
+0.49/game
52nd of 130
Secondary
−0.42/game
79th of 130

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

Transfer portal, 2021

8 players transferred in and 15 out. WAR is each one's 2020 season, before the move. Every team's portal

Brought in
0.00WAR
67th most of 130
FBS median 0.02
Lost
0.01WAR
least of 130
FBS median 0.06
Net
−0.01WAR
47th of 130
FBS median 0.00

In 2021, the arrivals have added 0.01 WAR at Kansas State and the departures 0.18 wherever they went.

Arrivals (8)20202021
  1. Daniel ImatorbhebheTE · 3★from Illinois-0.01
The other 7
  1. Julius BrentsS · 3★from Iowa--
  2. Russ YeastS · 3★from Louisville--
  3. Timmy HorneDL · 3★from Charlotte--
  4. Kade WarnerWR · 2★from Nebraska--
  5. Reggie StubblefieldS · 2★from Prairie View A&M--
  6. Eric MunozLBfrom Utah State--
  7. Gabe GarberATHfrom Kansas--
Departures (15)20202021
  1. Wykeen GillWRto Duquesne0.01-
  2. Josh YoungbloodWR · 3★to Rutgers0.00-
  3. Keyon MozeeRB · 3★to Miami (OH)-0.18
The other 12
  1. D.J. RenderWR · 3★to Austin Peay--
  2. DeMarrquese HayesOLB · 3★to Texas State--
  3. Jeremiah HarrisLB · 3★to Prairie View A&M--
  4. Jonathan AlexanderS · 3★to Mississippi State--
  5. Lance RobinsonCB · 3★to Tulane--
  6. Matthew Pola-MaoDL · 3★to Arizona State--
  7. Ronald TripletteEDGE · 3★to UTSA--
  8. Thomas GraysonRB · 3★to Central Oklahoma--
  9. Tyrone LewisS · 3★to Louisiana--
  10. Will JonesCB · 3★to South Florida--
  11. Nick AstQBto UTEP--
  12. Walter NeilCBto UTEP--

Only quarterbacks, skill players and specialists have a WAR of their own, so they make up these totals; linemen and defenders count in the moves but add none. 2020 is the player's season at his old school, 2021 his season after the move. A dash means no FBS snaps that season. Rosters tie CFBD's portal entries to players, which works for about 19 in 20 skill-position moves.

Talent and roster

How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →

What it had and what it did, 2021
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 570, 67th of 130 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 178, 60th of 130 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 91%, 23rd of 128 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +14.2, 21st 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
+14.4points per game

Kansas State's SP+ of +14.2 is 14.4 points above the −0.2 its roster talent predicts, 13th of 130 in FBS.

Offense+5.8
Defense+8.9

The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.

−200+2005001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 1004, SP+ +26.0 (−3.4 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 1002, SP+ +32.0 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 985, SP+ +29.3 (+1.5 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 935, SP+ +18.7 (−4.9 vs. talent)LSU: talent 904, SP+ +4.1 (−17.0 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 895, SP+ +16.8 (−3.6 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 888, SP+ +21.1 (+1.3 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 886, SP+ +10.2 (−9.4 vs. talent)Florida: talent 886, SP+ +11.0 (−8.6 vs. talent)USC: talent 875, SP+ −0.6 (−19.4 vs. talent)Texas: talent 874, SP+ +8.5 (−10.3 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 853, SP+ +17.4 (+0.2 vs. talent)Miami: talent 841, SP+ +10.8 (−5.5 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 840, SP+ +11.0 (−5.2 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 833, SP+ +23.4 (+7.7 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 821, SP+ +14.3 (−0.5 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 798, SP+ +6.4 (−6.8 vs. talent)Washington: talent 790, SP+ −0.7 (−13.3 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 781, SP+ +17.5 (+5.5 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 770, SP+ +7.6 (−3.7 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 751, SP+ +20.1 (+10.0 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 748, SP+ +3.9 (−6.0 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 746, SP+ +9.4 (−0.3 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 745, SP+ −10.2 (−19.9 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 744, SP+ +10.3 (+0.7 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 734, SP+ +11.8 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 732, SP+ +14.8 (+6.0 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 723, SP+ +13.8 (+5.5 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 716, SP+ +10.5 (+2.6 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 709, SP+ +13.4 (+6.0 vs. talent)Utah: talent 708, SP+ +15.2 (+7.9 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 707, SP+ −6.7 (−14.0 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 706, SP+ +6.2 (−1.0 vs. talent)NC State: talent 700, SP+ +16.1 (+9.2 vs. talent)TCU: talent 699, SP+ −0.6 (−7.4 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 677, SP+ +11.2 (+5.7 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 669, SP+ +17.6 (+12.6 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 664, SP+ −7.8 (−12.6 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 664, SP+ +2.4 (−2.3 vs. talent)California: talent 662, SP+ +3.4 (−1.3 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 661, SP+ +15.6 (+11.0 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 657, SP+ +11.4 (+7.0 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 653, SP+ +14.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 649, SP+ −11.1 (−15.0 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 648, SP+ +3.1 (−0.7 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 644, SP+ +10.3 (+6.6 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 641, SP+ −10.0 (−13.5 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 641, SP+ +8.9 (+5.4 vs. talent)UCF: talent 639, SP+ +4.8 (+1.4 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 636, SP+ +0.9 (−2.3 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 630, SP+ +4.3 (+1.4 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 627, SP+ +21.2 (+18.5 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 620, SP+ +7.2 (+4.9 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 614, SP+ +17.2 (+15.2 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 614, SP+ +14.3 (+12.3 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 611, SP+ +1.8 (−0.1 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 610, SP+ −19.4 (−21.2 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 608, SP+ +7.8 (+6.1 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 607, SP+ +9.8 (+8.1 vs. talent)Duke: talent 606, SP+ −13.5 (−15.1 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 601, SP+ +6.7 (+5.3 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 589, SP+ +10.1 (+9.3 vs. talent)SMU: talent 576, SP+ +8.9 (+8.8 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 573, SP+ −3.0 (−3.0 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 572, SP+ +1.0 (+1.1 vs. talent)Houston: talent 571, SP+ +10.9 (+11.0 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 568, SP+ −12.6 (−12.3 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 567, SP+ +0.3 (+0.6 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 558, SP+ +9.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 553, SP+ −5.2 (−4.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 548, SP+ −19.7 (−18.5 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 541, SP+ −12.1 (−10.5 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 525, SP+ +13.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 521, SP+ −21.6 (−19.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 520, SP+ −11.6 (−9.1 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 516, SP+ +0.5 (+3.2 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 509, SP+ +6.5 (+9.5 vs. talent)Temple: talent 501, SP+ −19.1 (−15.8 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 496, SP+ −6.5 (−3.0 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 494, SP+ −4.0 (−0.4 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 484, SP+ +10.8 (+14.8 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 476, SP+ −17.9 (−13.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 470, SP+ +5.8 (+10.3 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 466, SP+ −14.2 (−9.5 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 465, SP+ +6.9 (+11.6 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 463, SP+ −3.9 (+0.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 463, SP+ −13.7 (−8.9 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 457, SP+ +8.0 (+13.1 vs. talent)App State: talent 450, SP+ +10.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Troy: talent 449, SP+ −6.5 (−1.1 vs. talent)UAB: talent 444, SP+ +9.1 (+14.6 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 443, SP+ −2.4 (+3.2 vs. talent)BYU: talent 443, SP+ +8.9 (+14.5 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 442, SP+ +8.3 (+13.9 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 436, SP+ +8.7 (+14.5 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 428, SP+ −16.0 (−9.9 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 422, SP+ +3.6 (+9.9 vs. talent)Rice: talent 420, SP+ −22.9 (−16.5 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 416, SP+ +13.2 (+19.7 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 415, SP+ −7.2 (−0.6 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 414, SP+ +1.8 (+8.4 vs. talent)San José State: talent 411, SP+ −1.9 (+4.8 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 409, SP+ −7.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 397, SP+ −2.3 (+4.9 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 396, SP+ +0.6 (+7.8 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 394, SP+ +0.1 (+7.4 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 392, SP+ −13.8 (−6.5 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 384, SP+ −15.3 (−7.7 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 381, SP+ −12.4 (−4.7 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 378, SP+ +1.5 (+9.3 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 361, SP+ −18.6 (−10.3 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 358, SP+ −6.4 (+2.0 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 354, SP+ −7.1 (+1.4 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 341, SP+ −7.8 (+1.0 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 338, SP+ −11.2 (−2.3 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 332, SP+ −11.6 (−2.5 vs. talent)UConn: talent 332, SP+ −25.6 (−16.5 vs. talent)Akron: talent 331, SP+ −23.1 (−14.0 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 327, SP+ +0.6 (+9.8 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 319, SP+ −4.2 (+5.2 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 312, SP+ −20.3 (−10.7 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 269, SP+ −1.0 (+9.6 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 267, SP+ −9.5 (+1.1 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 227, SP+ −29.3 (−18.0 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 155, SP+ +8.4 (+20.7 vs. talent)Navy: talent 128, SP+ −8.5 (+4.1 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 117, SP+ −24.2 (−11.6 vs. talent)Army: talent 112, SP+ +4.7 (+17.4 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 30, SP+ +7.4 (+20.3 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 570, SP+ +14.2, expected −0.2Kansas State
One dot per FBS team, 2021. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is Kansas State's conversion.
Conversion by season

Bars above the line: SP+ above what the roster's talent predicted. The lighter bar is the season in progress.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2021
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

68 of 8184%6th of 130
FBS median 77%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

0.5 ptsper game13th of 130
0.06 expected wins over 13 games, FBS median 1.0 pts
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

4 of 580%
FBS teams went 69%

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 0.03 of the 0.06 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 TEXQ2 7:59 4th & 1 at KSU 48, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
  2. vs OUQ4 13:05 4th & 13 at OU 48, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
  3. vs ISUQ4 5:05 4th & 8 at ISU 9, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
  4. at KUQ2 8:03 4th & 2 at midfield, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
  5. vs WVUQ3 2:25 4th & 4 at WVU 8, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
  6. vs WVUQ2 2:57 4th & 4 at WVU 14, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
  7. vs ISUQ2 12:10 4th & 3 at ISU 15, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
  8. at OKSTQ3 7:44 4th & 2 at KSU 42, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
Every call this season (81)
Wk 1 · vs STAN · W 24-75 of 5 agreed
  1. Q2 13:034th & 14 at midfield, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q3 15:004th & 10 at KSU 35, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 6:174th & 8 at KSU 27, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q4 10:084th & 10 at STAN 21, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q4 0:324th & 2 at STAN 39, up 17 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 2 · vs SIU · W 31-235 of 5 agreed
  1. Q2 1:194th & 4 at SIU 45, down 2 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q3 5:564th & 11 at SIU 16, down 2 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q4 14:524th & 19 at SIU 44, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q4 9:154th & 7 at KSU 43, down 2 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 7:144th & 6 at SIU 6, down 2 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 3 · vs NEV · W 38-173 of 4 agreed
  1. Q1 8:224th & 6 at NEV 43, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 2:394th & 6 at KSU 40, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 2:084th & 14 at NEV 19, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 9:154th & 9 at KSU 26, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 4 · at OKST · L 20-3112 of 13 agreed
  1. Q1 14:544th & 1 at OKST 15, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 8:514th & 10 at OKST 14, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q1 0:334th & 8 at OKST 44, down 11 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q1 0:334th & 8 at OKST 44, down 11 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 8:484th & 2 at KSU 33, down 18 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q2 8:484th & 2 at KSU 33, down 18 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 11:134th & 7 at KSU 34, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 7:444th & 2 at KSU 42, down 21 · PuntedClose call
  9. Q3 3:194th & 3 at OKST 47, down 21 · Went for itAgreed
  10. Q3 3:194th & 3 at OKST 47, down 21 · Went for itAgreed
  11. Q4 14:444th & 15 at KSU 25, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  12. Q4 11:404th & 4 at KSU 13, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  13. Q4 5:454th & 22 at KSU 20, down 24 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 5 · vs OU · L 31-376 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 10:004th & 5 at OU 40, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 0:114th & 2 at OU 2, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 7:204th & 4 at OU 46, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 1:304th & 12 at OU 12, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 9:574th & 7 at KSU 20, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 13:054th & 13 at OU 48, down 10 · Went for it−1.5 pts
  7. Q4 6:124th & 1 at midfield, down 17 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 7 · vs ISU · L 20-333 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 13:084th & 4 at KSU 41, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 12:104th & 3 at ISU 15, down 3 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q2 2:274th & 20 at KSU 15, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 12:574th & 6 at KSU 46, down 13 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 5:054th & 8 at ISU 9, down 17 · Went for itClose call
Wk 8 · at TTU · W 25-245 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 10:124th & 15 at KSU 21, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 3:294th & 4 at TTU 29, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 6:194th & 6 at midfield, down 14 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 2:404th & 6 at TTU 6, down 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 12:474th & 2 at KSU 33, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 9:084th & 1 at TTU 2, down 12 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 9 · vs TCU · W 31-123 of 4 agreed
  1. Q2 9:224th & 1 at TCU 42, up 9 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q3 13:534th & 8 at KSU 19, up 16 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 10:224th & 14 at KSU 18, up 16 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q4 1:364th & 3 at TCU 24, up 22 · Kicked a field goalClose call
Wk 10 · at KU · W 35-102 of 3 agreed
  1. Q2 8:034th & 2 at midfield, up 8 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q3 7:284th & 6 at KU 6, up 8 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q4 2:244th & 16 at KSU 17, up 11 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 11 · vs WVU · W 34-174 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 5:274th & 7 at KSU 32, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 13:394th & 10 at KSU 38, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 6:034th & 17 at WVU 38, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 2:574th & 4 at WVU 14, up 14 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q3 2:254th & 4 at WVU 8, up 14 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  6. Q4 11:444th & 8 at WVU 39, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 1:594th & 5 at WVU 7, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 12 · vs BAY · L 10-2010 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 11:094th & 4 at midfield, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 6:014th & 10 at BAY 37, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q1 2:084th & 20 at KSU 32, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 11:224th & 9 at BAY 46, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 11:224th & 9 at BAY 46, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q2 3:034th & 5 at KSU 30, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 13:594th & 6 at KSU 39, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 8:244th & 10 at BAY 11, down 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  9. Q3 3:394th & 6 at KSU 45, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q4 9:254th & 8 at BAY 21, down 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 13 · at TEX · L 17-226 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 8:524th & 7 at KSU 42, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 7:594th & 1 at KSU 48, up 1 · Punted−1.7 pts
  3. Q2 1:564th & 9 at TEX 33, up 1 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 12:004th & 15 at TEX 38, up 1 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 8:464th & 10 at KSU 42, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 14:514th & 4 at KSU 31, down 2 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 9:144th & 1 at KSU 30, down 2 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 4:034th & 1 at TEX 17, down 5 · Went for itAgreed
TaxAct Texas Bowl · vs LSU · W 42-204 of 4 agreed
  1. Q1 9:504th & 3 at LSU 33, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 0:364th & 2 at LSU 28, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q3 2:094th & 30 at LSU 40, up 21 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q4 0:484th & 5 at KSU 42, up 28 · PuntedAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

33 of 3887%
FBS median 91%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

1.4 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.6 pts
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Never went for two
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. vs OUQ4 1:20 Touchdown, down 7 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.7 pts
  2. vs NEVQ4 6:12 Touchdown, up 13 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.4 pts
  3. vs WVUQ4 7:22 Touchdown, up 13 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.3 pts

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2021
8-5vs. 7.3 expected+0.7 wins

45th 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
  2. W
  3. W
  4. L
  5. L
  6. L
  7. W
  8. W
  9. W
  10. W
  11. L
  12. L
  13. W
What moved it, 2021
+0.8 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
+0.5 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

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+0.63
  • Possession & field position−0.03
  • Clock−0.01
  • Timeouts+0.03
  • Other+0.01
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09
Game by game

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.

Season arc, 2021

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Kansas State's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2021

The largest single-play change in Kansas State's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

Kansas State's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

Kansas State's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

Kansas State's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$106.40-8.2% over the past year
Series & rivalries

Kansas State's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com