Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1652nd
  Defense+0.1924th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%38th
  Defense45.3%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3798th
  Defense+1.1956th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0325th
  Defense+0.1431st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2869th
  Defense+0.2628th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%46th
  Defense48.6%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%31st
  Defense37.1%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9654th
  Defense3.0133rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%63rd
  Defense19.9%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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. L
   BC
2. L
   COLO
3. L
   VAN
4. L
   PSU
5. L
   BGSU
6. L
   M-OH
7. W
   KENT
8. W
   EMU
9. L
   TOL
10. W
    BALL
11. L
    AKR
12. L
    BUF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2014

1. Blake FrohnapfelQB437 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 42nd of 199 QBs
   1.79WAR1.09 to 2.41
2. Tajae SharpeWR116 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 27th of 469 WRs
   0.31WAR0.12 to 0.50
3. Shadrach AbrokwahRB118 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 140th of 350 RBs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.26
4. Lorenzo WoodleyRB70 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 160th of 350 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
5. Rodney MillsWR52 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 120th of 469 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.24
6. Jalen WilliamsWR36 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 166th of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
7. Marken MichelWR56 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 275th of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
8. Jean SifrinTE64 plays · +0.040 pts/play · 2nd of 212 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.11 to 0.18

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.15 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 M-OHQ4 12:33 4th & 22 at M-OH 29, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.1 pts
2. vs BGSUQ4 7:37 4th & 18 at BGSU 25, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
3. at M-OHQ3 6:32 4th & 1 at MASS 12, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at AKRQ3 0:00 4th & 13 at AKR 13, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at TOLQ2 3:03 4th & 9 at TOL 23, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs BGSUQ3 12:19 4th & 9 at BGSU 37, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at VANQ2 15:00 4th & 2 at MASS 20, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs EMUQ2 1:09 4th & 10 at EMU 31, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

94th of 128 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. L

   BC
2. L

   COLO
3. L

   VAN
4. L

   PSU
5. L

   BGSU
6. L

   M-OH
7. W

   KENT
8. W

   EMU
9. L

   TOL
10. W

    BALL
11. L

    AKR
12. L

    BUF

What moved it, 2014

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−0.92
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.86

Game by game

• BCL 7-30 vs BC21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• COLOL 38-41 vs COLO12% → 22%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +2
• VANL 31-34 at VAN14% → 6%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −20
• PSUL 7-48 at PSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• BGSUL 42-47 vs BGSU23% → 8%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• M-OHL 41-42 at M-OH37% → 45%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +8: Possession & field position +4, Scoreboard +3
• KENTW 40-17 at KENT46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• EMUW 36-14 vs EMU79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• TOLL 35-42 at TOL13% → 3%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• BALLW 24-10 vs BALL64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• AKRL 6-30 at AKR30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32
• BUFL 21-41 vs BUF48% → 1%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, 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.