Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1142nd
  Defense+0.2212th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%33rd
  Defense49.1%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2984th
  Defense+1.0990th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0023rd
  Defense+0.1517th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2258th
  Defense+0.3310th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%28th
  Defense51.8%15th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%56th
  Defense42.2%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6114th
  Defense3.287th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.4%3rd
  Defense16.9%21st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.2%43rd
  Defense17.7%20th

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, 2019

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
   INST
2. L
   CCU
3. W
   BC
4. L
   WVU
5. L
   TCU
6. L
   OU
7. L
   TEX
8. W
   TTU
9. L
   KSU
10. L
    OKST
11. L
    ISU
12. L
    BAY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2019

1. Carter StanleyQB300 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 93rd of 228 QBs
   0.84WAR0.29 to 1.40
2. Pooka Williams Jr.RB179 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 34th of 349 RBs
   0.61WAR0.45 to 0.78
3. Andrew ParchmentWR62 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 121st of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
4. Stephon Robinson Jr.WR49 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 177th of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
5. Liam JonesPK14 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 77th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
6. Khalil HerbertRB24 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 268th of 349 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
7. Kwamie Lassiter IIWR37 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 273rd of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Daylon CharlotWR34 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 300th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52952974th of 130Roster talent: 529, 74th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16616669th of 130Recruiting: 166, 69th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%99th of 130Returning production: 42%, 99th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.8−9.8103rd of 130SP+ rating: −9.8, 103rd 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, 2019

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 0.06 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 BCQ4 6:19 4th & 3 at BC 41, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. at TEXQ4 6:19 4th & 10 at TEX 36, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs WVUQ1 3:13 4th & 1 at KU 19, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs WVUQ3 6:06 4th & 4 at WVU 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs INSTQ4 1:35 4th & 14 at INST 37, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs WVUQ1 5:10 4th & 2 at KU 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at ISUQ4 1:02 4th & 22 at KU 20, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs TTUQ1 5:01 4th & 6 at TTU 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

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. W

   INST
2. L

   CCU
3. W

   BC
4. L

   WVU
5. L

   TCU
6. L

   OU
7. L

   TEX
8. W

   TTU
9. L

   KSU
10. L

    OKST
11. L

    ISU
12. L

    BAY

What moved it, 2019

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−0.84
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.88

Game by game

• INSTW 24-17 vs INST75% → 94%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position −2
• CCUL 7-12 vs CCU68% → 3%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• BCW 48-24 at BC9% → 100%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +91: Scoreboard +68, Clock +2
• WVUL 24-29 vs WVU40% → 11%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• TCUL 14-51 at TCU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −16
• OUL 20-45 vs OU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −5
• TEXL 48-50 at TEX7% → 4%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −13
• TTUW 37-34 vs TTU31% → 96%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• KSUL 10-38 vs KSU36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• OKSTL 13-31 at OKST13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• ISUL 31-41 at ISU5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• BAYL 6-61 vs BAY16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21

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.