Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.1248th
• 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.
  Offense37.7%8th
  Defense46.3%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2671st
  Defense+1.1769th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0433rd
  Defense+0.0941st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0727th
  Defense+0.1650th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%16th
  Defense48.8%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%11th
  Defense40.3%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7732nd
  Defense3.0329th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%37th
  Defense19.7%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%25th
  Defense15.5%38th

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, 2018

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2018

1. Peyton BenderQB224 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 126th of 225 QBs
   0.61WAR0.20 to 1.02
2. Pooka Williams Jr.RB151 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 65th of 351 RBs
   0.46WAR0.34 to 0.56
3. Khalil HerbertRB84 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 151st of 351 RBs
   0.28WAR0.20 to 0.37
4. Dom WilliamsRB39 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 262nd of 351 RBs
   0.13WAR0.11 to 0.15
5. Gabriel RuiPK13 plays · +0.359 pts/play · 74th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Jeremiah BookerWR25 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 224th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Kyle ThompsonP51 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 45th of 91 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.14
8. Carter StanleyQB36 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 209th of 225 QBs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  51751772nd of 130Roster talent: 517, 72nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16316371st of 130Recruiting: 163, 71st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%15th of 129Returning production: 85%, 15th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.0−10.0100th of 130SP+ rating: −10.0, 100th of 130 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.18 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. at CMUQ3 6:09 4th & 1 at CMU 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.2 pts
2. at KSUQ4 12:14 4th & 4 at KSU 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.9 pts
3. at KSUQ2 5:38 4th & 1 at KSU 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
4. at CMUQ2 0:10 4th & 10 at CMU 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.9 pts
5. at TTUQ2 2:32 4th & 1 at KU 44, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
6. vs TCUQ1 2:44 4th & 1 at KU 10, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
7. vs OKSTQ4 9:50 4th & 6 at KU 10, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
8. at CMUQ2 11:32 4th & 2 at KU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

73rd 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. L

   NICH
2. W

   CMU
3. W

   RUTG
4. L

   BAY
5. L

   OKST
6. L

   WVU
7. L

   TTU
8. W

   TCU
9. L

   ISU
10. L

    KSU
11. L

    OU
12. L

    TEX

What moved it, 2018

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−0.76
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.75

Game by game

• NICHL 23-26 vs NICH71% → 12%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −19
• CMUW 31-7 at CMU53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• RUTGW 55-14 vs RUTG59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +40
• BAYL 7-26 at BAY30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• OKSTL 28-48 vs OKST15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• WVUL 22-38 at WVU5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11
• TTUL 16-48 at TTU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −19
• TCUW 27-26 vs TCU21% → 94%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• ISUL 3-27 vs ISU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• KSUL 17-21 at KSU30% → 5%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• OUL 40-55 at OU2% → 1%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −5
• TEXL 17-24 vs TEX13% → 5%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −24, Clock −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.