Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.171st
  Defense+0.0665th
• 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.
  Offense29.6%1st
  Defense37.2%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1737th
  Defense+1.2043rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.191st
  Defense+0.0652nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.146th
  Defense+0.0865th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense33.7%1st
  Defense42.1%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.0%1st
  Defense28.4%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense1.961st
  Defense2.8452nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense29.5%1st
  Defense19.7%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.5%21st
  Defense1.6%25th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Kent 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
   ILL
2. W
   DSU
3. L
   MINN
4. L
   MRSH
5. W
   M-OH
6. L
   TOL
7. W
   MASS
8. L
   BGSU
9. L
   BUF
10. L
    OHIO
11. L
    CMU
12. L
    AKR

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

Players, 2015

1. George BollasQB119 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 137th of 205 QBs
   0.47WAR0.27 to 0.66
2. Anthony MelchioriPK62 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 3rd of 115 kickers
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.32
3. Trayion DurhamRB69 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 207th of 333 RBs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
4. Nick HolleyQB24 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 190th of 205 QBs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.15
5. Raekwon JamesRB26 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 249th of 333 RBs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08
6. Ernest CalhounWR24 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 351st of 411 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. Kris WhiteWR19 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 362nd of 411 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05
8. Colin ReardonWR23 plays · −0.013 pts/play · 409th of 411 WRs
   −0.01WAR−0.03 to 0.02

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 Kent 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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  338338110th of 128Roster talent: 338, 110th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  103103113th of 128Recruiting: 103, 113th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%88th of 127Returning production: 48%, 88th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.9−11.9105th of 128SP+ rating: −11.9, 105th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Kent State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.09 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 MASSQ3 8:01 4th & 3 at MASS 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at MINNQ2 6:29 4th & 1 at KENT 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs M-OHQ3 13:46 4th & 6 at M-OH 37, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs MRSHQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at KENT 29, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at MINNQ4 8:47 4th & 9 at MINN 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at MINNQ4 1:18 4th & 19 at KENT 18, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs MRSHQ2 5:43 4th & 4 at MRSH 48, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at MASSQ4 6:39 4th & 5 at MASS 49, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

77th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Kent State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 10 of 12 games; 2 have no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   ILL
2. W

   DSU
3. L

   MINN
4. L

   MRSH
5. W

   M-OH
6. L

   TOL
7. W

   MASS
8. L

   BGSU
9. L

   BUF
10. L

    OHIO
11. L

    CMU
12. L

    AKR

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Kent 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−0.83
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.50

Game by game

• ILLL 3-52 at ILL17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −21
• DSUW 45-13 vs DSU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• MINNL 7-10 at MINN8% → 5%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 29-36 vs MRSH25% → 20%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −15
• M-OHW 20-14 vs M-OH78% → 95%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• TOLL 7-38 at TOL14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• MASSW 15-10 at MASS33% → 93%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• BGSUL 0-48 vs BGSU23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• OHIOL 0-27 at OHIO28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30
• AKRL 0-20 at AKR25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28

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

Closest call

KENT 27-24 CMU (2016) - Kent State dropped to a 0.3% win probability before pulling it out.