Kansas

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1758th
  Defense−0.0177th
• 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.
  Offense44.6%58th
  Defense35.5%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3787th
  Defense+1.2934th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1564th
  Defense−0.0169th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1944th
  Defense+0.1552nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.5%75th
  Defense41.6%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.1%35th
  Defense24.8%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4282nd
  Defense2.3593rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.6%86th
  Defense28.9%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%56th
  Defense19.9%86th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   LIU
2. L
   MIZ
3. L
   ASU
4. W
   MTSU
5. L
   UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kansas.

Players, 2026

1. Isaiah MarshallQB154 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 19th of 192 QBs
   0.48WAR0.23 to 0.73
2. Dylan EdwardsRB57 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 78th of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
3. Nik McMillanWR21 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 78th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
4. Cam PickettWR20 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 185th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
5. Yasin WillisRB19 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 226th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
6. Nahzae CoxWR11 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Keaton KubeckaWR11 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 271st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Martin ConningtonPK5 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 69th of 82 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68568562nd of 138Roster talent: 685, 62nd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18718765th of 138Recruiting: 187, 65th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  18%18%102nd of 136Returning production: 18%, 102nd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.2+7.250th of 138SP+ rating so far: +7.2, 50th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.03 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 ASUQ3 3:25 4th & 2 at ASU 26, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. vs MIZQ4 3:24 4th & 16 at KU 27, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
3. vs ASUQ4 9:34 4th & 10 at ASU 23, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs MTSUQ3 8:33 4th & 4 at KU 49, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs MIZQ4 0:34 4th & 18 at KU 17, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs ASUQ2 7:58 4th & 4 at KU 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
7. vs MIZQ1 10:49 4th & 6 at MIZ 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

108th of 138 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

   LIU
2. L

   MIZ
3. L

   ASU
4. W

   MTSU
5. L

   UTAH

What moved it, 2026

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+0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• LIUW 51-6 vs LIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MIZL 21-38 vs MIZ34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• ASUL 17-24 vs ASU36% → 6%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• MTSUW 55-0 vs MTSU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +12
• UTAHL 24-41 at UTAH11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −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.