Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2792nd
  Defense+0.238th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%67th
  Defense47.4%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4297th
  Defense+1.1871st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1261st
  Defense+0.247th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4999th
  Defense+0.3316th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%49th
  Defense51.4%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.
  Offense38.2%94th
  Defense37.5%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1968th
  Defense3.485th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%45th
  Defense12.0%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%74th
  Defense11.8%1st

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   TNTC
2. W
   WVU
3. W
   HOU
4. W
   DUKE
5. W
   ISU
6. L
   TCU
7. L
   OU
8. L
   BAY
9. W
   OKST
10. L
    TTU
11. L
    TEX
12. L
    KSU
13. L
    ARK

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2022

1. Jalon DanielsQB232 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 55th of 234 QBs
   1.31WAR0.82 to 1.87
2. Jason BeanQB153 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 115th of 234 QBs
   0.54WAR0.21 to 0.95
3. Devin NealRB173 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 40th of 384 RBs
   0.46WAR0.27 to 0.63
4. Luke GrimmWR49 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 96th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.07 to 0.24
5. Mason FairchildTE32 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 30th of 214 TEs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
6. Lawrence ArnoldWR45 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 227th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Jared CaseyTE17 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 56th of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Quentin SkinnerWR30 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 285th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57457469th of 129Roster talent: 574, 69th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915972nd of 129Recruiting: 159, 72nd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%32nd of 128Returning production: 73%, 32nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.9+2.960th of 129SP+ rating: +2.9, 60th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.15 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 TCUQ3 9:52 4th & 1 at KU 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at WVUQ3 7:00 4th & 1 at KU 36, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at WVUQ4 2:17 4th & 1 at KU 42, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs ISUQ3 10:52 4th & 3 at ISU 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs ISUQ3 2:44 4th & 8 at ISU 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at KSUQ2 1:42 4th & 1 at KU 14, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at ARKQ3 11:59 4th & 4 at ARK 48, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at ARKQ4 3:52 4th & 6 at ARK 21, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

30th of 131 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

   TNTC
2. W

   WVU
3. W

   HOU
4. W

   DUKE
5. W

   ISU
6. L

   TCU
7. L

   OU
8. L

   BAY
9. W

   OKST
10. L

    TTU
11. L

    TEX
12. L

    KSU
13. L

    ARK

What moved it, 2022

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−0.32
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.26
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.68

Game by game

• TNTCW 56-10 vs TNTC97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• WVUW 55-42 at WVU21% → 8%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +2
• HOUW 48-30 at HOU25% → 99%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +64, Clock +2
• DUKEW 35-27 vs DUKE68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• ISUW 14-11 vs ISU41% → 96%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• TCUL 31-38 vs TCU27% → 5%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• OUL 42-52 at OU23% → 5%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts +1
• BAYL 23-35 at BAY24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28
• OKSTW 37-16 vs OKST52% → 99%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• TTUL 28-43 at TTU36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• TEXL 14-55 vs TEX22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27
• KSUL 27-47 at KSU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• ARKL 53-55 at ARK40% → 29%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −11: Timeouts +20, Clock −19

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.