Massachusetts

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+0.2169th
  Defense−0.0586th
• 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.
  Offense44.0%55th
  Defense39.2%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2866th
  Defense+1.1188th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1459th
  Defense−0.0783rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3575th
  Defense+0.0772nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%42nd
  Defense44.6%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.2%68th
  Defense28.3%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2469th
  Defense2.8455th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%47th
  Defense21.1%69th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.8%81st
  Defense14.9%36th

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 Massachusetts 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
   RUTG
2. W
   SHU
3. W
   STO
4. W
   SAC
5. L
   EMU
6. L
   M-OH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2026

1. William Watson IIIQB69 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 90th of 192 QBs
   0.22WAR0.10 to 0.32
2. T.Y. HardingWR29 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 91st of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
3. Aedan McCarthyQB40 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 175th of 192 QBs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09
4. Elijah FaulknerRB28 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 229th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
5. Reece AdkinsTE11 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 57th of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
6. Max DowlingTE8 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 62nd of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Derek MorrisPK6 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 58th of 82 kickers
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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 Massachusetts'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.
  526526128th of 138Roster talent: 526, 128th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9999129th of 138Recruiting: 99, 129th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  -57%-57%136th of 136Returning production: -57%, 136th 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.
  −9.5−9.5106th of 138SP+ rating so far: −9.5, 106th 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 Massachusetts'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 0.07 of the 0.09 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 RUTGQ2 3:42 4th & 1 at RUTG 11, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs M-OHQ4 4:55 4th & 1 at M-OH 16, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs M-OHQ2 5:37 4th & 1 at MASS 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at SACQ3 6:52 4th & 1 at MASS 18, up 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at RUTGQ3 8:22 4th & 7 at RUTG 34, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs M-OHQ2 14:11 4th & 7 at M-OH 38, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at SACQ4 9:55 4th & 1 at MASS 29, up 29Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at SACQ4 1:00 4th & 1 at SAC 41, up 29Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

34th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Massachusetts's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   RUTG
2. W

   SHU
3. W

   STO
4. W

   SAC
5. L

   EMU
6. L

   M-OH

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Massachusetts'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+0.25
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.55

Game by game

• RUTGW 37-21 at RUTG2% → 99%Before kickoff −48 · On the field +96: Scoreboard +55, Clock +2
• SHUW 37-10 vs SHU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• STOW 36-14 vs STO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• SACW 35-6 at SAC64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +40
• EMUL 14-38 vs EMU53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −54, Clock −2
• M-OHL 19-20 vs M-OH29% → 20%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Massachusetts's side.

Closest call

MASS 37-21 RUTG (2026) - Massachusetts dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.