Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1467th
  Defense+0.0659th
• 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.
  Offense41.4%33rd
  Defense40.5%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3191st
  Defense+1.2629th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0341st
  Defense+0.1034th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2472nd
  Defense+0.0577th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%45th
  Defense45.0%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%34th
  Defense32.1%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6316th
  Defense2.8848th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.1%9th
  Defense23.2%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%17th
  Defense19.8%85th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   HAW
2. L
   CCU
3. L
   ODU
4. L
   TEM
5. L
   TENN
6. L
   OHIO
7. W
   GASO
8. W
   APP
9. L
   MSST
10. W
    ME
11. W
    BYU
12. L
    FIU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2017

1. Andrew FordQB327 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 54th of 226 QBs
   1.25WAR0.54 to 1.81
2. Marquis YoungRB173 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 120th of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.13 to 0.38
3. Andy IsabellaWR94 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 35th of 426 WRs
   0.20WAR0.10 to 0.29
4. Bilal AllyRB70 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 186th of 352 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
5. Ross ComisQB105 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 187th of 226 QBs
   0.15WAR−0.06 to 0.36
6. Sadiq PalmerWR47 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 194th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Logan LaurentP64 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 26th of 95 punters
   0.08WAR−0.02 to 0.16
8. Adam BrenemanTE77 plays · +0.025 pts/play · 11th of 199 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.07 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  36836894th of 130Roster talent: 368, 94th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114110th of 130Recruiting: 114, 110th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%31st of 128Returning production: 75%, 31st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.7−9.7100th of 128SP+ rating: −9.7, 100th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.21 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 APPQ4 14:09 4th & 1 at MASS 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. at TENNQ4 4:31 4th & 7 at TENN 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. at TEMQ4 8:39 4th & 10 at TEM 28, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
4. at MSSTQ4 5:00 4th & 5 at MASS 27, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. vs ODUQ3 7:20 4th & 7 at ODU 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs OHIOQ4 14:26 4th & 11 at OHIO 25, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
7. vs MEQ2 0:30 4th & 13 at ME 34, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
8. vs ODUQ2 5:05 4th & 4 at MASS 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

111th of 130 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

   HAW
2. L

   CCU
3. L

   ODU
4. L

   TEM
5. L

   TENN
6. L

   OHIO
7. W

   GASO
8. W

   APP
9. L

   MSST
10. W

    ME
11. W

    BYU
12. L

    FIU

What moved it, 2017

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−1.32
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.28
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.31

Game by game

• HAWL 35-38 vs HAW59% → 15%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −41, Clock −4
• CCUL 28-38 at CCU57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −42
• ODUL 7-17 vs ODU45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• TEML 21-29 at TEM20% → 5%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• TENNL 13-17 at TENN5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• OHIOL 50-58 vs OHIO43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• GASOW 55-20 vs GASO76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• APPW 30-27 vs APP42% → 78%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −25
• MSSTL 23-34 at MSST2% → 2%Before kickoff −48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −6
• MEW 44-31 vs ME89% → 98%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17
• BYUW 16-10 at BYU46% → 95%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• FIUL 45-63 at FIU56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −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.