Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1767th
  Defense+0.228th
• 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.
  Offense44.2%63rd
  Defense47.4%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2030th
  Defense+1.2165th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1781st
  Defense+0.0845th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2247th
  Defense+0.463rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%59th
  Defense52.5%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%79th
  Defense33.6%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3384th
  Defense3.0745th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.0%82nd
  Defense16.4%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%32nd
  Defense14.2%22nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   WASH
2. L
   OU
3. W
   LIU
4. L
   UGA
5. W
   OHIO
6. L
   M-OH
7. L
   TOL
8. W
   AKR
9. L
   BALL
10. W
    BGSU
11. L
    EMU
12. W
    BUF

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

Players, 2022

1. Collin SchleeQB254 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 67th of 234 QBs
   1.09WAR0.60 to 1.61
2. Marquez CooperRB206 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 22nd of 384 RBs
   0.57WAR0.39 to 0.77
3. Devin KargmanQB53 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 188th of 234 QBs
   0.14WAR0.03 to 0.28
4. Devontez WalkerWR53 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 172nd of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
5. Bryan BradfordRB35 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 260th of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Dante CephasWR31 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 285th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
7. Ja'Shaun PokeWR45 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 322nd of 455 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.03 to 0.13
8. Andrew GlassPK20 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 77th of 110 kickers
   0.05WAR−0.03 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  387387112th of 129Roster talent: 387, 112th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13413499th of 129Recruiting: 134, 99th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%86th of 128Returning production: 46%, 86th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.1−13.1106th of 129SP+ rating: −13.1, 106th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.08 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. at TOLQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at TOL 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs EMUQ4 3:51 4th & 1 at EMU 17, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. at BUFQ2 0:27 4th & 9 at BUF 33, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at TOLQ3 5:25 4th & 3 at TOL 18, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at BGSUQ3 8:41 4th & 3 at BGSU 9, up 20Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at TOLQ4 4:22 4th & 21 at TOL 26, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs BALLQ2 7:00 4th & 3 at KENT 37, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at BGSUQ4 6:35 4th & 2 at BGSU 10, up 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

102nd of 131 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

   WASH
2. L

   OU
3. W

   LIU
4. L

   UGA
5. W

   OHIO
6. L

   M-OH
7. L

   TOL
8. W

   AKR
9. L

   BALL
10. W

    BGSU
11. L

    EMU
12. W

    BUF

What moved it, 2022

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−0.43
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.57

Game by game

• WASHL 20-45 at WASH7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• OUL 3-33 at OU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• LIUW 63-10 vs LIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UGAL 22-39 at UGA0% → 1%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −3
• OHIOW 31-24 vs OHIO83% → 50%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −32: Timeouts −21, Clock +14
• M-OHL 24-27 at M-OH61% → 75%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position −4
• TOLL 31-52 at TOL30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −33
• AKRW 33-27 vs AKR87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18
• BALLL 20-27 vs BALL69% → 4%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• BGSUW 40-6 at BGSU51% → 100%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• EMUL 24-31 vs EMU72% → 5%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• BUFW 30-27 at BUF38% → 54%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +13, Clock +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.