Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0519th
  Defense+0.1725th
• 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.
  Offense37.9%10th
  Defense45.0%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3085th
  Defense+1.2822nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1574th
  Defense+0.189th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.046th
  Defense+0.1747th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.8%12th
  Defense50.9%21st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%16th
  Defense31.7%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7628th
  Defense3.0527th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.6%2nd
  Defense17.4%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%6th
  Defense14.7%25th

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, 2018

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
   HOW
3. L
   PSU
4. L
   MISS
5. L
   BALL
6. L
   OHIO
7. L
   M-OH
8. L
   AKR
9. W
   BGSU
10. L
    BUF
11. L
    TOL
12. L
    EMU

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

Players, 2018

1. Woody BarrettQB397 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 58th of 225 QBs
   1.41WAR0.68 to 2.10
2. Jo-El ShawRB100 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 109th of 351 RBs
   0.37WAR0.30 to 0.43
3. Justin RankinRB97 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 179th of 351 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.33
4. Matthew TrickettPK14 plays · +0.388 pts/play · 55th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
5. Antwan DixonWR53 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 222nd of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
6. Mike CarriganWR50 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 227th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
7. Isaiah McKoyWR52 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 285th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
8. Trey HarrellWR19 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 343rd of 434 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  352352114th of 130Roster talent: 352, 114th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  106106123rd of 130Recruiting: 106, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  95%95%5th of 129Returning production: 95%, 5th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.4−20.4124th of 130SP+ rating: −20.4, 124th of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.06 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 AKRQ4 0:43 4th & 1 at KENT 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at BGSUQ2 2:57 4th & 2 at KENT 39, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs OHIOQ2 14:11 4th & 1 at OHIO 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs OHIOQ3 6:32 4th & 11 at OHIO 35, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs TOLQ2 3:01 4th & 4 at KENT 30, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at MISSQ2 15:00 4th & 16 at MISS 34, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs EMUQ2 8:30 4th & 4 at KENT 10, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at M-OHQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at KENT 30, down 31Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

114th 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

   ILL
2. W

   HOW
3. L

   PSU
4. L

   MISS
5. L

   BALL
6. L

   OHIO
7. L

   M-OH
8. L

   AKR
9. W

   BGSU
10. L

    BUF
11. L

    TOL
12. L

    EMU

What moved it, 2018

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−1.14
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.83

Game by game

• ILLL 24-31 at ILL12% → 3%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• HOWW 54-14 vs HOW76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• PSUL 10-63 at PSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• MISSL 17-38 at MISS4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• BALLL 24-52 at BALL27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29
• OHIOL 26-27 vs OHIO23% → 18%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −30, Clock −3
• M-OHL 6-31 at M-OH25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +2
• AKRL 23-24 vs AKR45% → 65%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +19: Timeouts −25, Clock +15
• BGSUW 35-28 at BGSU47% → 95%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• BUFL 14-48 at BUF15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• TOLL 34-56 vs TOL24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1
• EMUL 20-28 vs EMU23% → 3%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −32, Clock −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.