Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.131st
  Defense+0.1237th
• 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.
  Offense35.0%2nd
  Defense41.1%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.079th
  Defense+1.375th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0610th
  Defense+0.0936th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.223rd
  Defense+0.1741st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.9%3rd
  Defense45.6%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.6%2nd
  Defense32.2%56th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5511th
  Defense2.7068th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%20th
  Defense23.6%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense24.2%1st
  Defense17.5%64th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   CLEM
2. W
   HOW
3. L
   MRSH
4. L
   LOU
5. L
   BUF
6. L
   NIU
7. W
   M-OH
8. L
   OHIO
9. L
   BGSU
10. L
    WMU
11. L
    CMU
12. L
    AKR

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

Players, 2017

1. George BollasQB214 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 108th of 226 QBs
   0.67WAR0.24 to 1.13
2. Justin RankinRB122 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 141st of 352 RBs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.33
3. Derek AdamsP41 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 23rd of 95 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.17
4. Shane HynesPK12 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 86th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
5. Nick HolleyQB4 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 209th of 226 QBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
6. Mike CarriganWR9 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 395th of 426 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
7. Kavious PriceWR8 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 403rd of 426 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
8. Conor BrumfieldTE9 plays · +0.025 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  289289120th of 130Roster talent: 289, 120th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9696124th of 130Recruiting: 96, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%6th of 128Returning production: 91%, 6th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.2−20.2124th of 128SP+ rating: −20.2, 124th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 M-OHQ4 12:05 4th & 1 at KENT 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. vs CMUQ4 11:22 4th & 26 at CMU 30, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.7 pts
3. vs HOWQ2 0:02 4th & 12 at KENT 31, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
4. at OHIOQ2 0:10 4th & 11 at KENT 14, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
5. at NIUQ2 6:33 4th & 1 at NIU 1, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at AKRQ3 11:27 4th & 1 at KENT 29, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs CMUQ3 5:53 4th & 2 at CMU 15, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs M-OHQ2 3:39 4th & 3 at M-OH 19, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

87th of 130 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.

1. L

   CLEM
2. W

   HOW
3. L

   MRSH
4. L

   LOU
5. L

   BUF
6. L

   NIU
7. W

   M-OH
8. L

   OHIO
9. L

   BGSU
10. L

    WMU
11. L

    CMU
12. L

    AKR

What moved it, 2017

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−1.61
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.63

Game by game

• CLEML 3-56 at CLEM2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• HOWW 38-31 vs HOW93% → 93%Before kickoff +43 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• MRSHL 0-21 at MRSH17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• LOUL 3-42 at LOU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• BUFL 13-27 vs BUF33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• NIUL 3-24 at NIU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• M-OHW 17-14 vs M-OH26% → 85%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• OHIOL 3-48 at OHIO14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• BGSUL 16-44 vs BGSU47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• WMUL 20-48 at WMU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −13
• CMUL 23-42 vs CMU13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• AKRL 14-24 at AKR18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −22

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.