Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0217th
  Defense+0.1153rd
• 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.
  Offense38.7%10th
  Defense43.5%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1736th
  Defense+1.1665th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1261st
  Defense+0.1328th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.112nd
  Defense+0.0875th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.2%6th
  Defense50.0%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.2%35th
  Defense31.2%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0053rd
  Defense3.0342nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%41st
  Defense17.6%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.8%3rd
  Defense16.8%57th

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, 2016

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
   PSU
2. L
   NCAT
3. W
   MONM
4. L
   ALA
5. L
   AKR
6. W
   BUF
7. L
   M-OH
8. L
   OHIO
9. W
   CMU
10. L
    WMU
11. L
    BGSU
12. L
    NIU

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

Players, 2016

1. Nick HolleyQB292 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 60th of 218 QBs
   1.24WAR0.63 to 1.80
2. Justin RankinRB88 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 184th of 347 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.27
3. Shane HynesPK10 plays · +0.378 pts/play · 88th of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
4. Ernest CalhounWR22 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 356th of 417 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
5. George BollasQB10 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 206th of 218 QBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
6. Kavious PriceWR14 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 380th of 417 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Raekwon JamesRB20 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 279th of 347 RBs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05
8. Brice FacklerTE10 plays · +0.025 pts/play · 104th of 195 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  334334118th of 128Roster talent: 334, 118th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9696123rd of 128Recruiting: 96, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%44th of 128Returning production: 73%, 44th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.0−12.0108th of 128SP+ rating: −12.0, 108th 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, 2016

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 OHIOQ4 3:52 4th & 6 at OHIO 7, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.4 pts
2. vs AKRQ3 1:47 4th & 1 at KENT 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. vs OHIOQ4 11:46 4th & 2 at KENT 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs OHIOQ3 2:55 4th & 17 at OHIO 32, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
5. vs WMUQ3 11:19 4th & 2 at WMU 48, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at M-OHQ2 1:52 4th & 1 at KENT 21, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs MONMQ4 4:24 4th & 4 at MONM 39, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at M-OHQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at KENT 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

93rd 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 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   PSU
2. L

   NCAT
3. W

   MONM
4. L

   ALA
5. L

   AKR
6. W

   BUF
7. L

   M-OH
8. L

   OHIO
9. W

   CMU
10. L

    WMU
11. L

    BGSU
12. L

    NIU

What moved it, 2016

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−1.92
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.45

Game by game

• PSUL 13-33 at PSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −13
• MONMW 27-7 vs MONM82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 0-48 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• AKRL 27-31 vs AKR37% → 15%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −2
• BUFW 44-20 at BUF49% → 99%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +53, Clock +2
• M-OHL 14-18 at M-OH51% → 5%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• OHIOL 10-14 vs OHIO40% → 9%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• CMUW 27-24 at CMU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position +1
• WMUL 21-37 vs WMU10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• BGSUL 7-42 at BGSU59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −55, Possession & field position +3
• NIUL 21-31 vs NIU35% → 10%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −43, Possession & field position +2

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.