Kansas State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1256th
  Defense+0.0565th
• 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.
  Offense40.8%33rd
  Defense39.5%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3893rd
  Defense+1.3316th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1368th
  Defense+0.0841st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1339th
  Defense+0.0484th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.2%34th
  Defense45.2%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.8%53rd
  Defense28.2%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8232nd
  Defense2.7373rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.2%13th
  Defense19.8%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.5%21st
  Defense16.7%66th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   ISU
2. W
   UND
3. L
   ARMY
4. L
   ARIZ
5. W
   UCF
6. L
   BAY
7. W
   TCU
8. W
   KU
9. L
   TTU
10. W
    OKST
11. L
    UTAH
12. W
    COLO

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

Players, 2025

1. Avery JohnsonQB371 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 47th of 231 QBs
   1.43WAR0.78 to 2.13
2. Joe JacksonRB166 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 52nd of 365 RBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.38
3. Jayce BrownWR50 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 87th of 451 WRs
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.29
4. Garrett OakleyTE50 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 7th of 213 TEs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.28
5. Jaron TibbsWR72 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 95th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.03 to 0.30
6. Dylan EdwardsRB37 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 257th of 365 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
7. Brayden LoftinTE11 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 161st of 213 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Will AnciauxTE11 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 169th of 213 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70670647th of 134Roster talent: 706, 47th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719748th of 134Recruiting: 197, 48th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%8th of 132Returning production: 69%, 8th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.0+7.042nd of 134SP+ rating: +7.0, 42nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 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 TTUQ2 1:52 4th & 16 at KSU 19, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.0 pts
2. vs ISUQ3 13:25 4th & 1 at KSU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs TCUQ4 4:34 4th & 1 at TCU 1, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs COLOQ3 9:27 4th & 2 at KSU 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at UTAHQ4 2:25 4th & 3 at KSU 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs TCUQ4 8:02 4th & 1 at KSU 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs TTUQ2 12:03 4th & 3 at TTU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UCFQ4 2:41 4th & 3 at UCF 29, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

106th of 136 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

   ISU
2. W

   UND
3. L

   ARMY
4. L

   ARIZ
5. W

   UCF
6. L

   BAY
7. W

   TCU
8. W

   KU
9. L

   TTU
10. W

    OKST
11. L

    UTAH
12. W

    COLO

What moved it, 2025

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−0.30
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.44

Game by game

• ISUL 21-24 vs ISU59% → 6%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −51, Clock −2
• UNDW 38-35 vs UND97% → 97%Before kickoff +47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +8
• ARMYL 21-24 vs ARMY91% → 8%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• ARIZL 17-23 at ARIZ55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −1
• UCFW 34-20 vs UCF71% → 92%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts −26
• BAYL 34-35 at BAY34% → 11%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +3
• TCUW 41-28 vs TCU43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• KUW 42-17 at KU44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• TTUL 20-43 vs TTU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• OKSTW 14-6 at OKST92% → 97%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• UTAHL 47-51 at UTAH15% → 9%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position −2
• COLOW 24-14 vs COLO89% → 97%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1

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.