Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.081st
  Defense+0.1530th
• 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.
  Offense35.9%2nd
  Defense46.5%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1841st
  Defense+1.1948th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.048th
  Defense+0.1814th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.094th
  Defense+0.1553rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.6%2nd
  Defense50.7%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.1%4th
  Defense36.8%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6916th
  Defense3.0636th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%65th
  Defense20.5%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%24th
  Defense18.0%74th

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, 2016

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2016

1. Montell CozartQB98 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 146th of 218 QBs
   0.30WAR0.15 to 0.44
2. Carter StanleyQB115 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 156th of 218 QBs
   0.26WAR0.08 to 0.43
3. Ke'aun KinnerRB84 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 144th of 347 RBs
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.33
4. Taylor MartinRB48 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 204th of 347 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
5. Steven Sims Jr.WR58 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 199th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
6. Matthew WymanPK15 plays · +0.323 pts/play · 64th of 116 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. LaQuvionte GonzalezWR51 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 248th of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
8. Ryan WillisQB80 plays · +0.045 pts/play · 200th of 218 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.08 to 0.22

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49149172nd of 128Roster talent: 491, 72nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16316366th of 128Recruiting: 163, 66th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%40th of 128Returning production: 77%, 40th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.9−15.9119th of 128SP+ rating: −15.9, 119th 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, 2016

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 0.06 of the 0.10 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 TCUQ4 0:40 4th & 22 at KU 31, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.5 pts
2. vs ISUQ2 10:24 4th & 2 at ISU 37, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs TCUQ3 5:01 4th & 4 at TCU 4, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs OHIOQ4 13:34 4th & 3 at KU 44, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs TEXQ2 11:00 4th & 3 at KU 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at KSUQ4 10:27 4th & 13 at KSU 47, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs OKSTQ2 2:13 4th & 3 at KU 20, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs TCUQ3 10:02 4th & 4 at TCU 12, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

70th 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. W

   URI
2. L

   OHIO
3. L

   MEM
4. L

   TTU
5. L

   TCU
6. L

   BAY
7. L

   OKST
8. L

   OU
9. L

   WVU
10. L

    ISU
11. W

    TEX
12. L

    KSU

What moved it, 2016

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−1.13
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.25

Game by game

• URIW 55-6 vs URI98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• OHIOL 21-37 vs OHIO37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• MEML 7-43 at MEM12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• TTUL 19-55 at TTU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• TCUL 23-24 vs TCU4% → 7%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• BAYL 7-49 at BAY2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• OKSTL 20-44 vs OKST5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −10
• OUL 3-56 at OU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• WVUL 21-48 at WVU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• ISUL 24-31 vs ISU24% → 10%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position +2
• TEXW 24-21 vs TEX7% → 83%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −21
• KSUL 19-34 at KSU7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12

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.