Kennesaw State

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−0.112nd
  Defense+0.1629th
• 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.
  Offense31.4%1st
  Defense46.2%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2335th
  Defense+1.1585th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.085th
  Defense+0.1237th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.142nd
  Defense+0.2228th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense36.9%1st
  Defense52.1%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.7%3rd
  Defense29.5%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.161st
  Defense3.0444th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.6%5th
  Defense19.7%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.6%39th
  Defense13.6%14th

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 Kennesaw State 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. L
   UTSA
2. L
   UL
3. L
   SJSU
4. L
   UTM
5. L
   JXST
6. L
   MTSU
7. W
   LIB
8. L
   WKU
9. L
   UTEP
10. L
    SHSU
11. W
    FIU
12. L
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kennesaw State.

Players, 2024

1. Qua AshleyRB120 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 109th of 373 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.34
2. Michael BenefieldRB110 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 136th of 373 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.30
3. Jacob UlrichP66 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 11th of 106 punters
   0.16WAR0.02 to 0.27
4. Carson KentTE14 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 52nd of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
5. Preston DanielsTE23 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 135th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
6. Davis BrysonWR79 plays · +0.012 pts/play · 340th of 452 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.08 to 0.11

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 Kennesaw State'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.
  288288131st of 131Roster talent: 288, 131st of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2929131st of 131Recruiting: 29, 131st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −25.1−25.1129th of 131SP+ rating: −25.1, 129th 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 Kennesaw State'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 0.06 of the 0.12 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 LIBQ4 0:06 4th & 1 at LIB 35, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.8 pts
2. at UTEPQ2 9:01 4th & 1 at KENN 10, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs SHSUQ3 7:28 4th & 1 at KENN 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs UTMQ4 13:18 4th & 12 at UTM 47, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at UTSAQ4 0:22 4th & 13 at UTSA 19, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs SHSUQ4 13:25 4th & 5 at SHSU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at WKUQ2 1:54 4th & 3 at KENN 48, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs UTMQ2 0:00 4th & 5 at UTM 31, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

69th of 134 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Kennesaw State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   UTSA
2. L

   UL
3. L

   SJSU
4. L

   UTM
5. L

   JXST
6. L

   MTSU
7. W

   LIB
8. L

   WKU
9. L

   UTEP
10. L

    SHSU
11. W

    FIU
12. L

    LT

What moved it, 2024

Every game starts at Kennesaw State'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−1.75
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.10
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.59

Game by game

• UTSAL 16-28 at UTSA6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts +1
• ULL 10-34 vs UL15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• SJSUL 10-31 at SJSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts +1
• UTML 13-24 vs UTM47% → 2%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• JXSTL 24-63 vs JXST13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18
• MTSUL 5-14 at MTSU24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27
• LIBW 27-24 vs LIB4% → 88%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• WKUL 14-31 at WKU6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts +1
• UTEPL 35-43 at UTEP34% → 6%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +13
• SHSUL 17-23 vs SHSU9% → 10%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −8
• FIUW 27-26 vs FIU25% → 91%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• LTL 0-33 at LT20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from Kennesaw State's side.

Closest call

LIB 24-27 KENN (2024) - Kennesaw State dropped to a 4.2% win probability before pulling it out.