Kansas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2283rd
  Defense+0.0475th
• 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.
  Offense44.0%60th
  Defense35.9%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3793rd
  Defense+1.462nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2392nd
  Defense−0.0693rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2161st
  Defense+0.1649th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.7%67th
  Defense40.0%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%45th
  Defense29.6%63rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3691st
  Defense2.6089th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.1%40th
  Defense23.6%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.3%88th
  Defense17.2%62nd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UTM
2. W
   TULN
3. W
   ARIZ
4. L
   BYU
5. W
   OKST
6. W
   COLO
7. W
   WVU
8. W
   KU
9. L
   HOU
10. L
    ASU
11. W
    CIN
12. L
    ISU
13. W
    RUTG

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

Players, 2024

1. Avery JohnsonQB406 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 38th of 232 QBs
   1.82WAR1.14 to 2.46
2. DJ GiddensRB189 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 22nd of 373 RBs
   0.51WAR0.37 to 0.66
3. Jayce BrownWR45 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 31st of 452 WRs
   0.22WAR0.10 to 0.34
4. Dylan EdwardsRB84 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 143rd of 373 RBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.27
5. Chris TennantPK16 plays · +0.335 pts/play · 33rd of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
6. Garrett OakleyTE22 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 70th of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10
7. Keagan JohnsonWR29 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 287th of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09
8. Dante CephasWR15 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 299th of 452 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65265264th of 131Roster talent: 652, 64th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818853rd of 131Recruiting: 188, 53rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%79th of 130Returning production: 39%, 79th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.1+14.118th of 131SP+ rating: +14.1, 18th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.14 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 KUQ4 4:04 4th & 12 at KU 42, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.2 pts
2. at ISUQ3 8:08 4th & 3 at ISU 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs OKSTQ3 9:39 4th & 1 at KSU 39, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs KUQ4 10:34 4th & 3 at KSU 35, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs KUQ3 2:12 4th & 3 at KSU 27, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at WVUQ2 5:09 4th & 4 at KSU 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs ASUQ4 3:05 4th & 14 at ASU 45, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at HOUQ4 8:04 4th & 4 at KSU 43, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

51st of 134 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

   UTM
2. W

   TULN
3. W

   ARIZ
4. L

   BYU
5. W

   OKST
6. W

   COLO
7. W

   WVU
8. W

   KU
9. L

   HOU
10. L

    ASU
11. W

    CIN
12. L

    ISU
13. W

    RUTG

What moved it, 2024

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+1.35
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.07
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.95

Game by game

• UTMW 41-6 vs UTM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• TULNW 34-27 at TULN72% → 91%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• ARIZW 31-7 vs ARIZ69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• BYUL 9-38 at BYU64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −56
• OKSTW 42-20 vs OKST62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −1
• COLOW 31-28 at COLO56% → 95%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• WVUW 45-18 at WVU49% → 100%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• KUW 29-27 vs KU71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• HOUL 19-24 at HOU75% → 35%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −6, Possession & field position +1
• ASUL 14-24 vs ASU67% → 2%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• CINW 41-15 vs CIN70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −1
• ISUL 21-29 at ISU39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts +3
• RUTGW 44-41 vs RUTG68% → 96%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +28, 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.