Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.092nd
  Defense+0.401st
• 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.
  Offense34.7%1st
  Defense54.4%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3086th
  Defense+1.346th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0438th
  Defense+0.341st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.211st
  Defense+0.491st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.7%5th
  Defense56.8%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.1%2nd
  Defense47.1%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.529th
  Defense3.551st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.3%7th
  Defense10.3%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense27.2%1st
  Defense13.1%1st

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, 2019

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
   RUTG
2. L
   SIU
3. L
   CLT
4. L
   CCU
5. W
   AKR
6. L
   FIU
7. L
   LT
8. L
   CONN
9. L
   LIB
10. L
    ARMY
11. L
    NU
12. L
    BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2019

1. Bilal AllyRB57 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 183rd of 349 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.27
2. Michael CurtisQB41 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 183rd of 228 QBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
3. Andrew BritoQB78 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 191st of 228 QBs
   0.17WAR0.04 to 0.31
4. Cam RobersonWR43 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 219th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
5. Randall WestQB26 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 207th of 228 QBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Sadiq PalmerWR11 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 410th of 439 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
7. Josiah JohnsonTE21 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 83rd of 207 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06
8. George GeorgopoulosP18 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 85th of 100 punters
   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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  359359114th of 130Roster talent: 359, 114th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127104th of 130Recruiting: 127, 104th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%116th of 130Returning production: 32%, 116th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −34.6−34.6130th of 130SP+ rating: −34.6, 130th 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, 2019

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 0.03 of the 0.06 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 AKRQ3 6:17 4th & 2 at AKR 33, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
2. vs AKRQ4 13:15 4th & 2 at AKR 17, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
3. at ARMYQ2 2:22 4th & 18 at MASS 9, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.4 pts
4. at NUQ3 6:45 4th & 14 at NU 25, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.4 pts
5. at CLTQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at MASS 34, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
6. vs CCUQ2 1:35 4th & 1 at MASS 41, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
7. vs CONNQ4 14:11 4th & 12 at CONN 43, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.3 pts
8. vs SIUQ3 4:47 4th & 7 at MASS 49, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

88th 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

   RUTG
2. L

   SIU
3. L

   CLT
4. L

   CCU
5. W

   AKR
6. L

   FIU
7. L

   LT
8. L

   CONN
9. L

   LIB
10. L

    ARMY
11. L

    NU
12. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2019

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−1.25
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.57

Game by game

• RUTGL 21-48 at RUTG13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• SIUL 20-45 vs SIU70% → 0%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −66, Clock −1
• CLTL 17-52 at CLT7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• CCUL 28-62 vs CCU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17
• AKRW 37-29 vs AKR21% → 97%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +3
• FIUL 0-44 at FIU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• LTL 21-69 at LT2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• CONNL 35-56 vs CONN27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• LIBL 21-63 vs LIB5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• ARMYL 7-63 at ARMY2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• NUL 6-45 at NU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• BYUL 24-56 vs BYU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −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.