Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense+0.1530th
• 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.
  Offense36.4%7th
  Defense42.9%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3588th
  Defense+1.2933rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.121st
  Defense+0.1519th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2160th
  Defense+0.2039th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.0%13th
  Defense47.0%49th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.9%5th
  Defense34.2%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.545th
  Defense2.9543rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%19th
  Defense17.9%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%14th
  Defense13.8%21st

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. W
   MRMK
2. L
   TTU
3. L
   BUF
4. L
   FSU
5. L
   OU
6. W
   MASS
7. L
   TOL
8. W
   BGSU
9. L
   BALL
10. W
    AKR
11. L
    CMU
12. W
    NIU

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

Players, 2025

1. Dru DeShieldsQB225 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 93rd of 231 QBs
   0.83WAR0.34 to 1.30
2. Gavin GarciaRB94 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 128th of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
3. Da'Shawn MartinWR40 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 201st of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.18
4. Jordan NubinRB62 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 256th of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
5. Terik MulderTE16 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 81st of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
6. Wayne HarrisWR44 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 327th of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.04 to 0.11
7. Jahzae KimbroughRB5 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 347th of 365 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
8. Cade WolfordWR8 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 418th of 451 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  456456128th of 134Roster talent: 456, 128th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  131131107th of 134Recruiting: 131, 107th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  11%11%121st of 132Returning production: 11%, 121st of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.3−19.3128th of 134SP+ rating: −19.3, 128th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.16 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 2:38 4th & 1 at BUF 3, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal9.2 pts
2. vs MRMKQ4 10:44 4th & 3 at KENT 49, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
3. vs BUFQ3 7:31 4th & 1 at KENT 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
4. at BALLQ3 6:40 4th & 8 at BALL 9, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.3 pts
5. vs BUFQ4 4:48 4th & 4 at BUF 32, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.9 pts
6. vs CMUQ3 7:18 4th & 11 at CMU 34, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
7. vs MASSQ3 9:47 4th & 6 at KENT 39, up 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs BUFQ2 6:45 4th & 12 at BUF 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

17th of 136 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. W

   MRMK
2. L

   TTU
3. L

   BUF
4. L

   FSU
5. L

   OU
6. W

   MASS
7. L

   TOL
8. W

   BGSU
9. L

   BALL
10. W

    AKR
11. L

    CMU
12. W

    NIU

What moved it, 2025

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+0.46
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.20
• Timeouts+0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.72

Game by game

• MRMKW 21-17 vs MRMK66% → 30%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• TTUL 14-62 at TTU0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• BUFL 28-31 vs BUF5% → 14%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +9: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• FSUL 10-66 at FSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• OUL 0-44 at OU0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• MASSW 42-6 vs MASS59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts −8
• TOLL 10-45 at TOL4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• BGSUW 24-21 vs BGSU32% → 85%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• BALLL 13-17 at BALL45% → 7%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −4
• AKRW 42-35 at AKR31% → 87%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +20
• CMUL 16-28 vs CMU32% → 2%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• NIUW 35-31 at NIU35% → 96%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +57, 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.