Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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.
  Offense0.0014th
  Defense+0.1235th
• 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.
  Offense39.8%20th
  Defense46.2%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2050th
  Defense+1.1179th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0648th
  Defense+0.0270th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0310th
  Defense+0.2620th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%24th
  Defense49.5%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.2%27th
  Defense38.4%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8650th
  Defense3.0325th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.5%26th
  Defense19.5%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%72nd
  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, 2015

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2015

1. Blake FrohnapfelQB473 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 42nd of 205 QBs
   1.74WAR1.03 to 2.40
2. Tajae SharpeWR151 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 11th of 411 WRs
   0.40WAR0.16 to 0.65
3. Marquis YoungRB155 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 44th of 333 RBs
   0.38WAR0.23 to 0.51
4. Jamal WilsonRB109 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 137th of 333 RBs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
5. Rodney MillsWR61 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 101st of 411 WRs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.28
6. Logan LaurentP64 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 12th of 92 punters
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
7. Marken MichelWR43 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 302nd of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.12
8. Shakur NesmithWR22 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 327th of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  324324116th of 128Roster talent: 324, 116th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  103103115th of 128Recruiting: 103, 115th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%21st of 127Returning production: 85%, 21st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.5−9.599th of 128SP+ rating: −9.5, 99th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.15 of the 0.20 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 BUFQ4 12:39 4th & 1 at MASS 49, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.5 pts
2. vs AKRQ4 3:01 4th & 20 at AKR 35, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.8 pts
3. vs FIUQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at MASS 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs KENTQ4 8:07 4th & 4 at MASS 15, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at BALLQ3 10:02 4th & 3 at MASS 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs TEMQ4 7:42 4th & 18 at TEM 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs FIUQ1 2:02 4th & 2 at FIU 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at BUFQ2 8:21 4th & 2 at MASS 18, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

116th 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

   COLO
2. L

   TEM
3. L

   ND
4. W

   FIU
5. L

   BGSU
6. L

   KENT
7. L

   TOL
8. L

   BALL
9. L

   AKR
10. W

    EMU
11. L

    M-OH
12. W

    BUF

What moved it, 2015

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−1.74
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.14

Game by game

• COLOL 14-48 at COLO14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• TEML 23-25 vs TEM30% → 14%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −33, Clock −3
• NDL 27-62 at ND4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• FIUW 24-14 vs FIU58% → 97%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• BGSUL 38-62 at BGSU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts +1
• KENTL 10-15 vs KENT67% → 7%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• TOLL 35-51 vs TOL26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• BALLL 10-20 at BALL44% → 3%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −2
• AKRL 13-17 vs AKR60% → 6%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• EMUW 28-17 at EMU71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• M-OHL 13-20 vs M-OH76% → 8%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −49, Possession & field position −3
• BUFW 31-26 at BUF34% → 97%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3

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.