Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0419th
  Defense+0.1531st
• 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%13th
  Defense45.4%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3291st
  Defense+1.1473rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0311th
  Defense+0.0650th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0932nd
  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.
  Offense46.0%29th
  Defense50.7%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%14th
  Defense32.3%63rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6212th
  Defense3.0243rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.2%8th
  Defense19.6%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%5th
  Defense15.3%33rd

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, 2016

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
   FLA
2. L
   BC
3. W
   FIU
4. L
   MSST
5. L
   TULN
6. L
   ODU
7. L
   LT
8. L
   SC
9. W
   WAG
10. L
    TROY
11. L
    BYU
12. L
    HAW

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2016

1. Andrew FordQB266 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 78th of 218 QBs
   1.10WAR0.59 to 1.58
2. Marquis YoungRB193 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 53rd of 347 RBs
   0.51WAR0.28 to 0.71
3. Andy IsabellaWR69 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 112th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
4. Logan LaurentP56 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 33rd of 82 punters
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
5. Jalen WilliamsWR34 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 183rd of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Ross ComisQB76 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 194th of 218 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.03 to 0.21
7. Sekai LindsayRB25 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 260th of 347 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.07
8. Adam BrenemanTE65 plays · +0.012 pts/play · 59th of 195 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.11 to 0.13

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  371371108th of 128Roster talent: 371, 108th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114107th of 128Recruiting: 114, 107th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  18%18%126th of 128Returning production: 18%, 126th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.3−15.3118th of 128SP+ rating: −15.3, 118th 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, 2016

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.04 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 FIUQ4 3:20 4th & 2 at FIU 12, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. at ODUQ2 5:45 4th & 5 at ODU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
3. at HAWQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at midfield, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs TULNQ3 6:54 4th & 3 at MASS 27, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs TULNQ2 5:23 4th & 3 at MASS 9, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs BCQ4 12:32 4th & 4 at MASS 26, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs MSSTQ2 15:00 4th & 7 at MSST 20, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs LTQ3 12:46 4th & 4 at LT 19, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

88th 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

   FLA
2. L

   BC
3. W

   FIU
4. L

   MSST
5. L

   TULN
6. L

   ODU
7. L

   LT
8. L

   SC
9. W

   WAG
10. L

    TROY
11. L

    BYU
12. L

    HAW

What moved it, 2016

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−1.28
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.85

Game by game

• FLAL 7-24 at FLA1% → 2%Before kickoff −49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −5
• BCL 7-26 vs BC10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• FIUW 21-13 vs FIU41% → 97%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• MSSTL 35-47 vs MSST5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −14, Clock −1
• TULNL 24-31 vs TULN41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• ODUL 16-36 at ODU25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27
• LTL 28-56 vs LT15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21
• SCL 28-34 at SC7% → 8%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −12, Possession & field position −1
• WAGW 34-10 vs WAG93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• TROYL 31-52 at TROY7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• BYUL 9-51 at BYU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• HAWL 40-46 at HAW19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1

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.