Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2794th
  Defense+0.1820th
• 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%90th
  Defense44.5%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2862nd
  Defense+1.3324th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3198th
  Defense+0.2011th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2983rd
  Defense+0.2227th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.4%93rd
  Defense50.0%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%83rd
  Defense33.0%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6098th
  Defense3.408th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.9%97th
  Defense13.5%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.3%88th
  Defense17.1%61st

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   LIN
2. L
   ILL
3. L
   UNLV
4. L
   WVU
5. L
   TCU
6. L
   ASU
7. W
   HOU
8. L
   KSU
9. W
   ISU
10. W
    BYU
11. W
    COLO
12. L
    BAY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2024

1. Jalon DanielsQB352 plays · +0.280 pts/play · 37th of 232 QBs
   1.84WAR1.21 to 2.46
2. Devin NealRB223 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 10th of 373 RBs
   0.60WAR0.42 to 0.78
3. Luke GrimmWR62 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 103rd of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR−0.02 to 0.26
4. Daniel Hishaw Jr.RB52 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 216th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
5. Lawrence ArnoldWR27 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 117th of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Quentin SkinnerWR27 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 134th of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.19
7. Trevor KardellTE12 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 112th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.05
8. Jared CaseyTE17 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 135th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.06

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69769749th of 131Roster talent: 697, 49th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16616674th of 131Recruiting: 166, 74th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%28th of 130Returning production: 64%, 28th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.9+4.949th of 131SP+ rating: +4.9, 49th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.16 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 BYUQ4 4:47 4th & 1 at KU 32, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. at KSUQ3 3:53 4th & 2 at KSU 46, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. at ASUQ3 10:04 4th & 2 at ASU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at ASUQ2 5:13 4th & 4 at ASU 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs ISUQ4 12:51 4th & 1 at ISU 12, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at BYUQ4 13:23 4th & 14 at BYU 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. vs ISUQ4 6:46 4th & 6 at ISU 37, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs TCUQ4 9:09 4th & 4 at KU 37, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

114th of 134 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

   LIN
2. L

   ILL
3. L

   UNLV
4. L

   WVU
5. L

   TCU
6. L

   ASU
7. W

   HOU
8. L

   KSU
9. W

   ISU
10. W

    BYU
11. W

    COLO
12. L

    BAY

What moved it, 2024

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−0.86
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.24

Game by game

• LINW 48-3 vs LIN100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ILLL 17-23 at ILL65% → 12%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• UNLVL 20-23 vs UNLV77% → 6%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• WVUL 28-32 at WVU44% → 3%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• TCUL 27-38 vs TCU55% → 3%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• ASUL 31-35 at ASU44% → 20%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• HOUW 42-14 vs HOU63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −1
• KSUL 27-29 at KSU29% → 4%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• ISUW 45-36 vs ISU42% → 96%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts −1
• BYUW 17-13 at BYU44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• COLOW 37-21 vs COLO46% → 99%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• BAYL 17-45 at BAY54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −50, Possession & field position −1

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.