Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.112nd
  Defense+0.311st
• 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.
  Offense30.5%1st
  Defense50.1%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4999th
  Defense+1.2941st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.151st
  Defense+0.272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0316th
  Defense+0.376th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.4%1st
  Defense54.8%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense19.2%1st
  Defense37.8%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.575th
  Defense3.581st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.6%6th
  Defense10.9%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense25.4%1st
  Defense11.4%2nd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   PITT
2. L
   SFPA
3. L
   TENN
4. L
   PSU
5. L
   EMU
6. L
   BALL
7. L
   BGSU
8. L
   WMU
9. L
   OHIO
10. L
    M-OH
11. L
    AKR
12. L
    BUF

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

Players, 2024

1. Tommy UlatowskiQB130 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 155th of 232 QBs
   0.30WAR0.08 to 0.52
2. Ky ThomasRB74 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 213th of 373 RBs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
3. Chrishon McCrayWR22 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 122nd of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
4. Luke FlorieaWR25 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 129th of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.19
5. Devin KargmanQB23 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 205th of 232 QBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. Ruel TomlinsonQB19 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 223rd of 232 QBs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06
7. Josh SmithP31 plays · +0.011 pts/play · 89th of 106 punters
   0.01WAR−0.05 to 0.06

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  435435125th of 131Roster talent: 435, 125th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122112th of 131Recruiting: 122, 112th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%23rd of 130Returning production: 71%, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −33.0−33.0131st of 131SP+ rating: −33.0, 131st of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.03 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 BALLQ4 1:39 4th & 27 at BALL 45, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
2. vs EMUQ2 1:00 4th & 1 at KENT 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
3. at M-OHQ3 1:02 4th & 3 at KENT 30, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. at BGSUQ4 3:33 4th & 10 at BGSU 32, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at BGSUQ4 3:33 4th & 10 at BGSU 32, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at M-OHQ2 1:55 4th & 8 at M-OH 39, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at M-OHQ4 0:28 4th & 13 at M-OH 35, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at BGSUQ2 8:21 4th & 4 at KENT 46, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

128th of 134 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

   PITT
2. L

   SFPA
3. L

   TENN
4. L

   PSU
5. L

   EMU
6. L

   BALL
7. L

   BGSU
8. L

   WMU
9. L

   OHIO
10. L

    M-OH
11. L

    AKR
12. L

    BUF

What moved it, 2024

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−2.34
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.27

Game by game

• PITTL 24-55 at PITT7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• SFPAL 17-23 vs SFPA87% → 5%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• TENNL 0-71 at TENN0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• PSUL 0-56 at PSU0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• EMUL 33-52 vs EMU21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• BALLL 35-37 vs BALL43% → 6%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• BGSUL 6-27 at BGSU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts +1
• WMUL 21-52 at WMU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• OHIOL 0-41 vs OHIO11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17
• M-OHL 7-34 at M-OH3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• AKRL 17-38 vs AKR28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• BUFL 7-43 at BUF9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12

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.