Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1770th
  Defense+0.2115th
• 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.
  Offense47.1%82nd
  Defense48.2%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.074th
  Defense+1.1765th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1060th
  Defense+0.1516th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3080th
  Defense+0.3213th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.2%81st
  Defense51.9%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.6%87th
  Defense38.4%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9250th
  Defense3.2015th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%33rd
  Defense16.2%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.3%30th
  Defense16.3%9th

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, 2019

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
   ASU
2. W
   KENN
3. L
   AUB
4. W
   BGSU
5. L
   WIS
6. W
   AKR
7. L
   OHIO
8. L
   M-OH
9. L
   TOL
10. W
    BUF
11. W
    BALL
12. W
    EMU
13. W
    USU

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

Players, 2019

1. Dustin CrumQB392 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 8th of 228 QBs
   2.33WAR1.63 to 3.04
2. Will MatthewsRB123 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 139th of 349 RBs
   0.31WAR0.23 to 0.40
3. Xavier WilliamsRB76 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 159th of 349 RBs
   0.26WAR0.20 to 0.32
4. Matthew TrickettPK25 plays · +0.482 pts/play · 5th of 114 kickers
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.29
5. Jo-El ShawRB56 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 200th of 349 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.24
6. Isaiah McKoyWR64 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 137th of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
7. Mike CarriganWR57 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 184th of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.18
8. Derek AdamsP41 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 30th of 100 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  313313123rd of 130Roster talent: 313, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111122nd of 130Recruiting: 111, 122nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  92%92%5th of 130Returning production: 92%, 5th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.2−10.2105th of 130SP+ rating: −10.2, 105th 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, 2019

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.20 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 USUQ3 1:00 4th & 1 at KENT 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs KENNQ4 7:52 4th & 2 at KENN 12, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. at TOLQ3 7:51 4th & 2 at TOL 46, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs USUQ2 6:40 4th & 1 at USU 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at OHIOQ2 10:45 4th & 1 at OHIO 10, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at EMUQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at KENT 28, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs BUFQ2 5:44 4th & 1 at BUF 6, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at TOLQ3 9:50 4th & 3 at TOL 30, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

25th 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

   ASU
2. W

   KENN
3. L

   AUB
4. W

   BGSU
5. L

   WIS
6. W

   AKR
7. L

   OHIO
8. L

   M-OH
9. L

   TOL
10. W

    BUF
11. W

    BALL
12. W

    EMU
13. W

    USU

What moved it, 2019

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+1.12
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• ASUL 7-30 at ASU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• KENNW 26-23 vs KENN72% → 78%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −21
• AUBL 16-55 at AUB2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• BGSUW 62-20 vs BGSU82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• WISL 0-48 at WIS2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• AKRW 26-3 at AKR82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• OHIOL 38-45 at OHIO34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• M-OHL 16-23 vs M-OH64% → 8%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• TOLL 33-35 at TOL40% → 12%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• BUFW 30-27 vs BUF41% → 96%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +40, Possession & field position +1
• BALLW 41-38 vs BALL47% → 86%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• EMUW 34-26 at EMU44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• USUW 51-41 vs USU34% → 97%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3

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.