Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1354th
  Defense+0.2210th
• 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.
  Offense45.0%67th
  Defense50.2%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2774th
  Defense+1.2625th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0436th
  Defense+0.196th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2363rd
  Defense+0.3113th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%69th
  Defense53.9%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.8%51st
  Defense40.7%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9452nd
  Defense3.0526th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%43rd
  Defense22.9%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.3%10th
  Defense13.6%10th

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, 2018

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
   DUQ
2. L
   BC
3. L
   GASO
4. L
   FIU
5. W
   CLT
6. L
   OHIO
7. L
   USF
8. L
   CCU
9. W
   CONN
10. W
    LIB
11. L
    BYU
12. L
    UGA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2018

1. Andrew FordQB154 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 111th of 225 QBs
   0.69WAR0.46 to 0.95
2. Ross ComisQB164 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 118th of 225 QBs
   0.65WAR0.38 to 0.99
3. Andy IsabellaWR106 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 15th of 434 WRs
   0.30WAR0.13 to 0.50
4. Marquis YoungRB135 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 151st of 351 RBs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.41
5. Sadiq PalmerWR35 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 281st of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
6. Brennon DingleWR17 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 357th of 434 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
7. Bilal AllyRB8 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 289th of 351 RBs
   0.02WAR0.02 to 0.03
8. Kyle HornTE13 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  38938999th of 130Roster talent: 389, 99th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  123123104th of 130Recruiting: 123, 104th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%13th of 129Returning production: 86%, 13th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.1−16.1112th of 130SP+ rating: −16.1, 112th of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.10 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 LIBQ3 8:53 4th & 18 at LIB 25, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
2. vs CLTQ2 10:43 4th & 3 at CLT 3, up 28Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs LIBQ2 10:15 4th & 15 at LIB 31, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at OHIOQ4 15:00 4th & 19 at OHIO 40, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs BYUQ2 10:39 4th & 3 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs LIBQ4 11:01 4th & 12 at LIB 38, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs CCUQ4 2:48 4th & 17 at MASS 39, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs DUQQ2 9:03 4th & 1 at MASS 25, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

102nd 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. W

   DUQ
2. L

   BC
3. L

   GASO
4. L

   FIU
5. W

   CLT
6. L

   OHIO
7. L

   USF
8. L

   CCU
9. W

   CONN
10. W

    LIB
11. L

    BYU
12. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2018

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−1.50
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• DUQW 63-15 vs DUQ92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• BCL 21-55 at BC10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• GASOL 13-34 at GASO46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −45, Clock +1
• FIUL 24-63 at FIU46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −43
• CLTW 49-31 vs CLT65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +36
• OHIOL 42-58 at OHIO25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• USFL 42-58 vs USF21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• CCUL 13-24 vs CCU64% → 3%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• CONNW 22-17 at CONN64% → 95%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• LIBW 62-59 vs LIB51% → 59%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +9: Timeouts −25, Clock +16
• BYUL 16-35 vs BYU18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −27
• UGAL 27-66 at UGA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −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.