Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.037th
  Defense+0.245th
• 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.
  Offense36.0%2nd
  Defense46.0%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2676th
  Defense+1.2726th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0220th
  Defense+0.0164th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0410th
  Defense+0.501st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.0%1st
  Defense50.4%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%18th
  Defense35.9%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.372nd
  Defense2.7067th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.0%10th
  Defense23.7%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%5th
  Defense15.7%45th

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.

Drives vs. expectation, 2017

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2017

1. Peyton BenderQB147 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 126th of 226 QBs
   0.47WAR0.24 to 0.71
2. Khalil HerbertRB76 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 163rd of 352 RBs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.28
3. Carter StanleyQB108 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 191st of 226 QBs
   0.13WAR−0.05 to 0.32
4. Steven Sims Jr.WR48 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 146th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
5. Taylor MartinRB37 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 246th of 352 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.12
6. Ben JohnsonTE24 plays · +0.018 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.04
7. Dom WilliamsRB10 plays · −0.000 pts/play · 292nd of 352 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01
8. Deron ThompsonRB6 plays · −0.007 pts/play · 292nd of 352 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.00

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  51251268th of 130Roster talent: 512, 68th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216268th of 130Recruiting: 162, 68th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%99th of 128Returning production: 40%, 99th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.8−14.8114th of 128SP+ rating: −14.8, 114th of 128 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

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2017

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.08 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 CMUQ4 13:28 4th & 10 at CMU 49, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
2. vs KSUQ3 13:25 4th & 3 at KSU 41, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs KSUQ4 1:21 4th & 6 at KSU 29, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs KSUQ2 0:07 4th & 14 at KSU 39, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at ISUQ2 11:31 4th & 1 at KU 35, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs CMUQ4 5:50 4th & 11 at KU 32, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at ISUQ2 0:57 4th & 10 at KU 42, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs KSUQ4 4:37 4th & 10 at KU 20, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

117th of 130 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

   SEMO
2. L

   CMU
3. L

   OHIO
4. L

   WVU
5. L

   TTU
6. L

   ISU
7. L

   TCU
8. L

   KSU
9. L

   BAY
10. L

    TEX
11. L

    OU
12. L

    OKST

What moved it, 2017

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−1.89
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• SEMOW 38-16 vs SEMO97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• CMUL 27-45 vs CMU59% → 2%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Clock −1
• OHIOL 30-42 at OHIO31% → 3%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +1
• WVUL 34-56 vs WVU7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −13
• TTUL 19-65 vs TTU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• ISUL 0-45 at ISU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• TCUL 0-43 at TCU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• KSUL 20-30 vs KSU6% → 3%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• BAYL 9-38 vs BAY30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35
• TEXL 27-42 at TEX2% → 1%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −6
• OUL 3-41 vs OU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• OKSTL 17-58 at OKST1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2

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.