Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.3397th
  Defense+0.1433rd
• 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.
  Offense48.1%91st
  Defense44.9%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4195th
  Defense+1.2266th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2190th
  Defense+0.1716th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.6299th
  Defense+0.1671st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.8%93rd
  Defense51.8%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.4%84th
  Defense29.6%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3991st
  Defense3.2325th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.0%80th
  Defense11.2%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%67th
  Defense16.6%56th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   MOST
2. W
   ILL
3. W
   NEV
4. W
   BYU
5. L
   TEX
6. W
   UCF
7. L
   OKST
8. W
   OU
9. W
   ISU
10. L
    TTU
11. L
    KSU
12. W
    CIN
13. W
    UNLV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2023

1. Jason BeanQB212 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 47th of 250 QBs
   1.51WAR0.99 to 2.07
2. Jalon DanielsQB78 plays · +0.379 pts/play · 121st of 250 QBs
   0.55WAR0.35 to 0.76
3. Devin NealRB212 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 29th of 383 RBs
   0.43WAR0.20 to 0.64
4. Lawrence ArnoldWR51 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 49th of 457 WRs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.36
5. Daniel Hishaw Jr.RB98 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 129th of 383 RBs
   0.21WAR0.10 to 0.31
6. Cole BallardQB58 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 185th of 250 QBs
   0.20WAR0.07 to 0.33
7. Mason FairchildTE32 plays · +0.287 pts/play · 19th of 212 TEs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.25
8. Luke GrimmWR42 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 144th of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.23

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63363362nd of 130Roster talent: 633, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016075th of 130Recruiting: 160, 75th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  100%100%1st of 128Returning production: 100%, 1st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.9+9.925th of 130SP+ rating: +9.9, 25th 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, 2023

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 0.07 of the 0.11 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 KSUQ4 5:33 4th & 5 at KSU 11, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
2. vs TTUQ4 4:42 4th & 6 at TTU 6, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at NEVQ4 2:00 4th & 5 at NEV 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at UNLVQ4 0:00 4th & 7 at UNLV 22, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs TTUQ3 8:24 4th & 2 at KU 18, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs KSUQ3 10:36 4th & 4 at KU 48, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs OUQ3 4:01 4th & 4 at OU 11, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at CINQ2 12:21 4th & 5 at CIN 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

35th of 133 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

   MOST
2. W

   ILL
3. W

   NEV
4. W

   BYU
5. L

   TEX
6. W

   UCF
7. L

   OKST
8. W

   OU
9. W

   ISU
10. L

    TTU
11. L

    KSU
12. W

    CIN
13. W

    UNLV

What moved it, 2023

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+1.20
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.21

Game by game

• MOSTW 48-17 vs MOST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• ILLW 34-23 vs ILL69% → 98%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• NEVW 31-24 at NEV97% → 92%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +13, Clock +1
• BYUW 38-27 vs BYU81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• TEXL 14-40 at TEX14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• UCFW 51-22 vs UCF47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +48
• OKSTL 32-39 at OKST64% → 7%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −2
• OUW 38-33 vs OU29% → 85%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position −3
• ISUW 28-21 at ISU46% → 95%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• TTUL 13-16 vs TTU60% → 13%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• KSUL 27-31 vs KSU35% → 6%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• CINW 49-16 at CIN76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +30
• UNLVW 49-36 at UNLV80% → 98%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +30, 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.