Try the model

Kent State

Golden Flashes · Mid-American · FBS
7-72021 · 6-3 in conference
SP+
−6.4 (#93)
FPI
−9.0 (#100)
SRS
−13.5 (#111)
Resume
#73

Next game

USF
at South Florida
Sat, Oct 17 · 7:00 PM EDT
Projected score
KENT13
USF37
Win chance
2%
KENT 2%USF 98%
Market: USF favored by 20.8 · Points model v7, built without betting lines. A model's view, not betting advice.Full projection →

Advanced stats

CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →

Profile vs. FBS, 2021
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.27, 93rd percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 50.5%, 98th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.20, 25th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.33, 99th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.21, 46th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 56.6%, 98th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 34.5%, 81st percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.64, 98th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 13.8%, 77th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 15.5%, 55th percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.25, 17th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 48.0%, 8th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.29, 41st percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.25, 10th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.29, 25th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 51.8%, 15th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 39.0%, 3rd percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.40, 12th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 15.5%, 33rd percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 14.6%, 22nd percentile among FBS

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.
  • 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.
  • Explosiveness
    Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  • Rushing EPA
    EPA per designed run.
  • Passing EPA
    EPA per pass play.
  • Standard downs
    Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  • Passing downs
    Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  • Line yards
    Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  • Stuff rate
    Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  • Havoc
    Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.

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.

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2021
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense+0.6531st of 130
Defense+0.75allowed109th of 130
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense+0.5040th of 130
Defense+0.95allowed123rd of 130
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense−0.324.0 pts/trip86th of 130
Defense+0.144.4 pts/trip allowed89th of 130
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.1057th of 130
Defense1.37opponents126th of 130

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
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

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

Players

YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →

Players, 2021
The quarterback
Dustin Crum: 2.49 WAR (90% interval 1.63 to 3.34)
12th of 219 FBS QBs in WAR · 22nd of 168 in value per play

Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.

  1. Dustin CrumQB427 plays · +0.311 pts/play · 12th of 219 QBs2.49WAR1.63 to 3.34
  2. Marquez CooperRB194 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 32nd of 387 RBs0.73WAR0.53 to 0.91
  3. Xavier WilliamsRB83 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 137th of 387 RBs0.33WAR0.24 to 0.43
  4. Dante CephasWR86 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 47th of 474 WRs0.22WAR0.12 to 0.32
  5. Keshunn AbramWR53 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 68th of 474 WRs0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
  6. Nykeim JohnsonWR67 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 94th of 474 WRs0.17WAR0.10 to 0.25
  7. Ja'Shaun PokeWR35 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 242nd of 474 WRs0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
  8. Andrew GlassPK20 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 46th of 128 kickers0.09WAR0.02 to 0.15
Every player (11)
  1. Bryan BradfordRB19 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 309th of 387 RBs0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
  2. Aaron HackettTE5 plays · −0.015 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01
  3. Josh SmithP38 plays · −0.005 pts/play · 98th of 101 punters0.00WAR−0.05 to 0.05
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
2.49WAR
16th of 130
Running backs
1.12WAR
30th of 130
Receivers
0.69WAR
18th of 130
Tight ends
0.00WAR
38th of 130
Kicker
0.09WAR
46th of 130
Punter
0.00WAR
127th of 130
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
+0.81/game
24th of 130
Front seven
−1.70/game
108th of 130
Secondary
−1.72/game
105th of 130

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

Transfer portal, 2021

7 players transferred in and 14 out. WAR is each one's 2020 season, before the move. Every team's portal

Brought in
0.07WAR
47th most of 130
FBS median 0.02
Lost
0.01WAR
least of 130
FBS median 0.06
Net
+0.06WAR
30th of 130
FBS median 0.00

In 2021, the arrivals have added 0.17 WAR at Kent State and the departures 0.07 wherever they went.

Arrivals (7)20202021
  1. Nykeim JohnsonWR · 3★from Syracuse0.060.17
  2. Aaron HackettTE · 3★from Syracuse0.010.00
The other 5
  1. Antwaine RichardsonS · 3★from Maryland--
  2. Damir FaisonEDGE · 3★from East Carolina--
  3. Nico BoldenS · 3★from New Mexico--
  4. Taj MustaphaWR · 3★from Wisconsin--
  5. Asher FrowEDGEfrom North Texas--
Departures (14)20202021
  1. Matthew TrickettK · 2★to Minnesota0.010.07
The other 13
  1. Antwan DixonWR · 3★to Valdosta State--
  2. Brad KemayouCB · 3★to undecided--
  3. Julian SamsIOL · 3★to undecided--
  4. Lonkevious McFaddenWR · 3★to Eastern Kentucky--
  5. Mike McNicholasIOL · 3★to undecided--
  6. Prince OkituamaDL · 3★to undecided--
  7. Woody BarrettQB · 3★to undecided--
  8. Jaylen DeCoteauCB · 2★to Sacred Heart--
  9. Jeremiah SalaamCB · 2★to undecided--
  10. Logan SwartzOT · 2★to undecided--
  11. Miles DanielCB · 2★to undecided--
  12. Oly OkombiDL · 2★to Towson--
  13. Quentin JonesDL · 2★to undecided--

Only quarterbacks, skill players and specialists have a WAR of their own, so they make up these totals; linemen and defenders count in the moves but add none. 2020 is the player's season at his old school, 2021 his season after the move. A dash means no FBS snaps that season. Rosters tie CFBD's portal entries to players, which works for about 19 in 20 skill-position moves.

Talent and roster

How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →

What it had and what it did, 2021
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 358, 113th of 130 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 132, 106th of 130 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 90%, 27th of 128 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: −6.4, 93rd 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
+2.0points per game

Kent State's SP+ of −6.4 is 2.0 points above the −8.4 its roster talent predicts, 59th of 130 in FBS.

Offense+8.3
Defense−4.9

The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.

−200+2005001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 1004, SP+ +26.0 (−3.4 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 1002, SP+ +32.0 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 985, SP+ +29.3 (+1.5 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 935, SP+ +18.7 (−4.9 vs. talent)LSU: talent 904, SP+ +4.1 (−17.0 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 895, SP+ +16.8 (−3.6 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 888, SP+ +21.1 (+1.3 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 886, SP+ +10.2 (−9.4 vs. talent)Florida: talent 886, SP+ +11.0 (−8.6 vs. talent)USC: talent 875, SP+ −0.6 (−19.4 vs. talent)Texas: talent 874, SP+ +8.5 (−10.3 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 853, SP+ +17.4 (+0.2 vs. talent)Miami: talent 841, SP+ +10.8 (−5.5 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 840, SP+ +11.0 (−5.2 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 833, SP+ +23.4 (+7.7 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 821, SP+ +14.3 (−0.5 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 798, SP+ +6.4 (−6.8 vs. talent)Washington: talent 790, SP+ −0.7 (−13.3 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 781, SP+ +17.5 (+5.5 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 770, SP+ +7.6 (−3.7 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 751, SP+ +20.1 (+10.0 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 748, SP+ +3.9 (−6.0 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 746, SP+ +9.4 (−0.3 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 745, SP+ −10.2 (−19.9 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 744, SP+ +10.3 (+0.7 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 734, SP+ +11.8 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 732, SP+ +14.8 (+6.0 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 723, SP+ +13.8 (+5.5 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 716, SP+ +10.5 (+2.6 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 709, SP+ +13.4 (+6.0 vs. talent)Utah: talent 708, SP+ +15.2 (+7.9 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 707, SP+ −6.7 (−14.0 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 706, SP+ +6.2 (−1.0 vs. talent)NC State: talent 700, SP+ +16.1 (+9.2 vs. talent)TCU: talent 699, SP+ −0.6 (−7.4 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 677, SP+ +11.2 (+5.7 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 669, SP+ +17.6 (+12.6 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 664, SP+ −7.8 (−12.6 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 664, SP+ +2.4 (−2.3 vs. talent)California: talent 662, SP+ +3.4 (−1.3 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 661, SP+ +15.6 (+11.0 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 657, SP+ +11.4 (+7.0 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 653, SP+ +14.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 649, SP+ −11.1 (−15.0 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 648, SP+ +3.1 (−0.7 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 644, SP+ +10.3 (+6.6 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 641, SP+ −10.0 (−13.5 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 641, SP+ +8.9 (+5.4 vs. talent)UCF: talent 639, SP+ +4.8 (+1.4 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 636, SP+ +0.9 (−2.3 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 630, SP+ +4.3 (+1.4 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 627, SP+ +21.2 (+18.5 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 620, SP+ +7.2 (+4.9 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 614, SP+ +17.2 (+15.2 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 614, SP+ +14.3 (+12.3 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 611, SP+ +1.8 (−0.1 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 610, SP+ −19.4 (−21.2 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 608, SP+ +7.8 (+6.1 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 607, SP+ +9.8 (+8.1 vs. talent)Duke: talent 606, SP+ −13.5 (−15.1 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 601, SP+ +6.7 (+5.3 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 589, SP+ +10.1 (+9.3 vs. talent)SMU: talent 576, SP+ +8.9 (+8.8 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 573, SP+ −3.0 (−3.0 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 572, SP+ +1.0 (+1.1 vs. talent)Houston: talent 571, SP+ +10.9 (+11.0 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 570, SP+ +14.2 (+14.4 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 568, SP+ −12.6 (−12.3 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 567, SP+ +0.3 (+0.6 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 558, SP+ +9.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 553, SP+ −5.2 (−4.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 548, SP+ −19.7 (−18.5 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 541, SP+ −12.1 (−10.5 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 525, SP+ +13.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 521, SP+ −21.6 (−19.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 520, SP+ −11.6 (−9.1 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 516, SP+ +0.5 (+3.2 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 509, SP+ +6.5 (+9.5 vs. talent)Temple: talent 501, SP+ −19.1 (−15.8 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 496, SP+ −6.5 (−3.0 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 494, SP+ −4.0 (−0.4 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 484, SP+ +10.8 (+14.8 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 476, SP+ −17.9 (−13.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 470, SP+ +5.8 (+10.3 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 466, SP+ −14.2 (−9.5 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 465, SP+ +6.9 (+11.6 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 463, SP+ −3.9 (+0.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 463, SP+ −13.7 (−8.9 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 457, SP+ +8.0 (+13.1 vs. talent)App State: talent 450, SP+ +10.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Troy: talent 449, SP+ −6.5 (−1.1 vs. talent)UAB: talent 444, SP+ +9.1 (+14.6 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 443, SP+ −2.4 (+3.2 vs. talent)BYU: talent 443, SP+ +8.9 (+14.5 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 442, SP+ +8.3 (+13.9 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 436, SP+ +8.7 (+14.5 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 428, SP+ −16.0 (−9.9 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 422, SP+ +3.6 (+9.9 vs. talent)Rice: talent 420, SP+ −22.9 (−16.5 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 416, SP+ +13.2 (+19.7 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 415, SP+ −7.2 (−0.6 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 414, SP+ +1.8 (+8.4 vs. talent)San José State: talent 411, SP+ −1.9 (+4.8 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 409, SP+ −7.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 397, SP+ −2.3 (+4.9 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 396, SP+ +0.6 (+7.8 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 394, SP+ +0.1 (+7.4 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 392, SP+ −13.8 (−6.5 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 384, SP+ −15.3 (−7.7 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 381, SP+ −12.4 (−4.7 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 378, SP+ +1.5 (+9.3 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 361, SP+ −18.6 (−10.3 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 354, SP+ −7.1 (+1.4 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 341, SP+ −7.8 (+1.0 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 338, SP+ −11.2 (−2.3 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 332, SP+ −11.6 (−2.5 vs. talent)UConn: talent 332, SP+ −25.6 (−16.5 vs. talent)Akron: talent 331, SP+ −23.1 (−14.0 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 327, SP+ +0.6 (+9.8 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 319, SP+ −4.2 (+5.2 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 312, SP+ −20.3 (−10.7 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 269, SP+ −1.0 (+9.6 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 267, SP+ −9.5 (+1.1 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 227, SP+ −29.3 (−18.0 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 155, SP+ +8.4 (+20.7 vs. talent)Navy: talent 128, SP+ −8.5 (+4.1 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 117, SP+ −24.2 (−11.6 vs. talent)Army: talent 112, SP+ +4.7 (+17.4 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 30, SP+ +7.4 (+20.3 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 358, SP+ −6.4, expected −8.4Kent State
One dot per FBS team, 2021. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is Kent State's conversion.
Conversion by season

Bars above the line: SP+ above what the roster's talent predicted. The lighter bar is the season in progress.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2021
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

66 of 10861%130th of 130
FBS median 77%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

1.7 ptsper game109th of 130
0.23 expected wins over 14 games, FBS median 1.0 pts
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

7 of 1450%
FBS teams went 69%

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.23 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 BUFQ4 0:31 4th & 6 at KENT 31, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
  2. at CMUQ3 13:03 4th & 1 at KENT 30, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
  3. at OHIOQ4 13:00 4th & 2 at OHIO 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
  4. at WMUQ2 0:01 4th & 3 at WMU 3, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
  5. at NIUQ2 4:59 4th & 13 at NIU 32, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
  6. vs M-OHQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at M-OH 4, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
  7. at OHIOQ4 3:04 4th & 2 at OHIO 10, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
  8. at WYOQ4 13:01 4th & 2 at WYO 12, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
Every call this season (108)
Wk 1 · at TA&M · L 10-416 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 5:234th & 11 at TA&M 13, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q1 2:494th & 3 at TA&M 47, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 10:244th & 9 at KENT 42, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 3:204th & 11 at TA&M 47, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 14:044th & 10 at KENT 21, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 6:144th & 6 at KENT 40, down 17 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 1:524th & 3 at KENT 40, down 24 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 14:434th & 15 at KENT 28, down 24 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 4:254th & 1 at KENT 34, down 31 · PuntedClose call
  10. Q4 3:184th & 8 at TA&M 8, down 31 · Kicked a field goalClose call
Wk 2 · vs VMI · W 60-103 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 6:584th & 1 at KENT 40, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 6:584th & 2 at VMI 42, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 14:204th & 3 at VMI 3, up 22 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q2 5:344th & 1 at VMI 44, up 32 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 11:514th & 1 at KENT 48, up 36 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 8:424th & 4 at VMI 49, up 50 · PuntedClose call
Wk 3 · at IOWA · L 7-307 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 10:224th & 2 at KENT 33, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 13:384th & 20 at KENT 27, down 2 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 8:574th & 16 at IOWA 34, down 2 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q3 13:054th & 8 at IOWA 35, down 9 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q3 8:254th & 1 at IOWA 44, down 9 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 14:124th & 13 at KENT 13, down 16 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 9:134th & 19 at KENT 40, down 16 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 5:374th & 16 at KENT 30, down 16 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 2:184th & 4 at KENT 31, down 23 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 4 · at MD · L 16-376 of 11 agreed
  1. Q1 9:124th & 6 at KENT 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 6:394th & 2 at MD 18, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q1 3:524th & 9 at MD 15, down 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 13:224th & 3 at MD 48, down 8 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 4:514th & 6 at MD 18, down 15 · Went for itClose call
  6. Q2 4:464th & 8 at MD 20, down 15 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q3 14:554th & 1 at MD 49, down 15 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q3 11:364th & 3 at MD 40, down 15 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q3 8:004th & 17 at KENT 35, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q4 14:484th & 11 at MD 16, down 28 · Went for itClose call
  11. Q4 4:524th & 12 at MD 34, down 21 · Went for itClose call
Wk 5 · vs BGSU · W 27-206 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 1:154th & 9 at BGSU 16, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 8:334th & 10 at BGSU 16, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 3:044th & 10 at KENT 47, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 0:004th & 7 at BGSU 16, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 11:084th & 20 at KENT 33, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 4:244th & 15 at BGSU 39, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 13:514th & 3 at KENT 25, up 10 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 1:364th & 1 at KENT 32, up 10 · PuntedClose call
Wk 6 · vs BUF · W 48-385 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 6:024th & 11 at KENT 36, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 2:194th & 1 at BUF 44, up 18 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 0:004th & 5 at BUF 9, up 18 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 12:334th & 9 at KENT 41, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 8:374th & 24 at BUF 29, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 2:214th & 4 at BUF 25, up 10 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  7. Q4 3:384th & 11 at KENT 40, down 3 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 0:314th & 6 at KENT 31, down 3 · Punted−3.1 pts
Wk 7 · at WMU · L 31-647 of 11 agreed
  1. Q1 3:244th & 27 at KENT 34, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 2:134th & 18 at KENT 15, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 10:454th & 2 at WMU 45, down 13 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 3:474th & 9 at WMU 34, down 9 · Went for itClose call
  5. Q2 0:014th & 3 at WMU 3, down 9 · Kicked a field goal−2.3 pts
  6. Q3 10:404th & 12 at KENT 24, down 13 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 7:334th & 27 at KENT 10, down 19 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 4:554th & 9 at KENT 31, down 26 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 13:274th & 6 at WMU 46, down 34 · PuntedClose call
  10. Q4 9:004th & 1 at WMU 15, down 34 · Went for itAgreed
  11. Q4 2:464th & 3 at KENT 36, down 33 · PuntedClose call
Wk 8 · at OHIO · W 34-273 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 6:274th & 2 at KENT 10, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 4:004th & 6 at OHIO 14, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q1 1:024th & 1 at OHIO 45, up 10 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 10:454th & 2 at KENT 33, up 10 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 6:534th & 11 at KENT 19, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 13:004th & 2 at OHIO 37, up 14 · Punted−2.4 pts
  7. Q4 3:044th & 2 at OHIO 10, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−1.2 pts
Wk 10 · vs NIU · W 52-474 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 12:294th & 12 at NIU 48, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 9:474th & 3 at NIU 42, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 14:104th & 4 at KENT 47, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 10:014th & 16 at NIU 22, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q2 0:514th & 1 at NIU 17, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q3 7:024th & 5 at NIU 43, up 11 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 10:354th & 8 at KENT 44, up 12 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 11 · at CMU · L 30-545 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 7:204th & 10 at CMU 15, up 7 · Went for itClose call
  2. Q1 3:244th & 10 at KENT 45, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 1:164th & 22 at KENT 23, down 5 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 0:004th & 8 at CMU 15, down 12 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 13:034th & 1 at KENT 30, down 9 · Punted−2.5 pts
  6. Q4 7:484th & 1 at CMU 44, down 17 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 2:254th & 19 at KENT 37, down 24 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 12 · at AKR · W 38-04 of 7 agreed
  1. Q2 2:214th & 1 at AKR 17, up 22 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q3 8:224th & 17 at AKR 31, up 29 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q3 5:134th & 3 at AKR 3, up 29 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q3 1:174th & 1 at AKR 36, up 32 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q4 12:014th & 4 at AKR 14, up 32 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  6. Q4 5:474th & 2 at AKR 18, up 35 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 5:284th & 12 at AKR 28, up 35 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 13 · vs M-OH · W 48-473 of 6 agreed
  1. Q2 12:384th & 5 at M-OH 45, down 6 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 0:004th & 4 at M-OH 4, down 2 · Kicked a field goal−1.6 pts
  3. Q3 7:024th & 13 at KENT 46, up 8 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q4 14:074th & 3 at M-OH 20, up 8 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q4 12:184th & 9 at M-OH 19, up 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q4 4:374th & 1 at M-OH 15, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 14 · at NIU · L 23-413 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 7:064th & 17 at KENT 42, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 4:594th & 13 at NIU 32, down 17 · Went for it−1.7 pts
  3. Q3 11:384th & 8 at NIU 24, down 17 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q4 9:434th & 6 at KENT 29, down 21 · Went for itClose call
  5. Q4 4:164th & 4 at NIU 4, down 28 · Went for itAgreed
Famous Idaho Potato Bowl · at WYO · L 38-524 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 11:254th & 6 at WYO 33, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 7:294th & 3 at WYO 23, up 10 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q2 4:044th & 3 at WYO 21, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q3 7:164th & 13 at midfield, down 4 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 13:014th & 2 at WYO 12, down 11 · Kicked a field goal−1.0 pts
  6. Q4 4:034th & 4 at WYO 38, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

45 of 5090%
FBS median 91%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0.2 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.6 pts
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Went for two 4 times, converted 3
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. at CMUQ3 0:35 Touchdown, down 10 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.1 pts
  2. at WYOQ4 2:54 Touchdown, down 15 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.1 pts
  3. at AKRQ2 10:44 Touchdown, up 20 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)<0.1 pts

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2021
7-7vs. 7.1 expected−0.1 wins

63rd 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
  2. W
  3. L
  4. L
  5. W
  6. W
  7. L
  8. W
  9. W
  10. L
  11. W
  12. W
  13. L
  14. L
What moved it, 2021
+0.1 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
−1.7 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

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−1.47
  • Possession & field position+0.01
  • Clock+0.12
  • Timeouts−0.17
  • Other+0.02
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.26
Game by game

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.

Season arc, 2021

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Kent State's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2021

The largest single-play change in Kent State's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

Kent State's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

Kent State's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

Kent State's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$88.39+15.0% over the past year
Series & rivalries

Kent State's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com