Kent State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0115th
  Defense+0.1236th
• 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.
  Offense34.6%4th
  Defense45.2%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3280th
  Defense+1.1774th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0612th
  Defense+0.0646th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1738th
  Defense+0.2336th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.1%3rd
  Defense52.6%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.
  Offense27.0%24th
  Defense27.1%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6514th
  Defense3.2417th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%18th
  Defense15.0%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.7%11th
  Defense14.1%26th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   SC
2. W
   WOF
3. L
   OSU
4. W
   BALL
5. L
   OHIO
6. L
   WMU

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

Players, 2026

1. Dru DeShieldsQB110 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 87th of 192 QBs
   0.23WAR0.04 to 0.41
2. Mason KingRB30 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 185th of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
3. Wayne HarrisWR20 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 147th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
4. Da'Realyst ClarkWR23 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 157th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
5. Brandon WhiteRB9 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 277th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
6. Terik MulderTE2 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
7. Hunter HoppertonFB3 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 297th of 320 RBs
   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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  523523130th of 138Roster talent: 523, 130th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  138138113th of 138Recruiting: 138, 113th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%36th of 136Returning production: 64%, 36th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −22.6−22.6132nd of 138SP+ rating so far: −22.6, 132nd of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.06 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 OHIOQ4 10:52 4th & 3 at OHIO 32, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs BALLQ2 8:14 4th & 12 at KENT 18, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
3. at WMUQ2 11:02 4th & 19 at WMU 30, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
4. vs OHIOQ2 12:00 4th & 4 at OHIO 7, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at OSUQ2 0:20 4th & 4 at OSU 15, down 28Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at SCQ1 7:00 4th & 1 at KENT 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs WOFQ1 7:18 4th & 4 at KENT 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs BALLQ2 0:00 4th & 16 at BALL 36, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

73rd of 138 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

   SC
2. W

   WOF
3. L

   OSU
4. W

   BALL
5. L

   OHIO
6. L

   WMU

What moved it, 2026

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−0.10
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.12

Game by game

• SCL 0-57 at SC2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• WOFW 36-15 vs WOF79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26
• OSUL 3-59 at OSU0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• BALLW 26-13 vs BALL63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• OHIOL 10-13 vs OHIO42% → 6%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• WMUL 7-38 at WMU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −18

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.