Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.059th
  Defense+0.311st
• 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.
  Offense35.6%5th
  Defense53.9%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1632nd
  Defense+1.1472nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.069th
  Defense+0.282nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0114th
  Defense+0.376th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.2%8th
  Defense58.4%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.3%3rd
  Defense42.3%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7328th
  Defense3.541st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%67th
  Defense14.2%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense1.6%25th

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, 2015

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 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
   SDST
2. L
   MEM
3. L
   RUTG
4. L
   ISU
5. L
   BAY
6. L
   TTU
7. L
   OKST
8. L
   OU
9. L
   TEX
10. L
    TCU
11. L
    WVU
12. L
    KSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2015

1. Ryan WillisQB102 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 150th of 205 QBs
   0.35WAR0.21 to 0.51
2. Montell CozartQB67 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 183rd of 205 QBs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.25
3. Ke'aun KinnerRB73 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 168th of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
4. De'Andre MannRB32 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 236th of 333 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. Ben JohnsonTE6 plays · −0.015 pts/play · 40th of 189 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01

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'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50050068th of 128Roster talent: 500, 68th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16616665th of 128Recruiting: 166, 65th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%111th of 127Returning production: 35%, 111th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.3−21.3125th of 128SP+ rating: −21.3, 125th 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, 2015

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'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 MEMQ2 6:54 4th & 1 at MEM 15, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at TCUQ4 14:10 4th & 1 at KU 16, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at ISUQ2 11:16 4th & 3 at ISU 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at RUTGQ4 9:02 4th & 7 at RUTG 20, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at TCUQ4 6:19 4th & 5 at TCU 10, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at TCUQ4 4:50 4th & 10 at KU 26, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs TTUQ4 4:07 4th & 6 at KU 41, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ISUQ4 11:29 4th & 14 at ISU 27, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

111th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Kansas's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   SDST
2. L

   MEM
3. L

   RUTG
4. L

   ISU
5. L

   BAY
6. L

   TTU
7. L

   OKST
8. L

   OU
9. L

   TEX
10. L

    TCU
11. L

    WVU
12. L

    KSU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Kansas'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−1.52
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• SDSTL 38-41 vs SDST74% → 28%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −33, Clock −4
• MEML 23-55 vs MEM21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• RUTGL 14-27 at RUTG18% → 2%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• ISUL 13-38 at ISU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −17
• BAYL 7-66 vs BAY1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• TTUL 20-30 vs TTU4% → 4%Before kickoff −46 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −12, Clock −1
• OKSTL 10-58 at OKST2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• OUL 7-62 vs OU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• TEXL 20-59 at TEX2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• TCUL 17-23 at TCU1% → 4%Before kickoff −49 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −4
• WVUL 0-49 vs WVU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• KSUL 14-45 vs KSU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1

Points of win probability, from Kansas's side.

Closest call

KU 55-42 WVU (2022) - Kansas dropped to a 3.0% win probability before pulling it out.