Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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−0.211st
  Defense+0.372nd
• 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.
  Offense25.5%1st
  Defense51.5%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3377th
  Defense+1.3717th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.261st
  Defense+0.322nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.154th
  Defense+0.422nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense28.4%1st
  Defense57.0%4th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.7%2nd
  Defense39.3%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.182nd
  Defense3.0434th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.6%7th
  Defense26.2%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.7%4th
  Defense17.2%58th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   GASO
2. L
   MRSH
3. L
   FAU
4. L
   LIB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2020

1. Will KochQB4 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 207th of 212 QBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
2. Josiah JohnsonTE1 plays · +0.034 pts/play · 137th of 191 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  247247120th of 127Roster talent: 247, 120th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  129129107th of 127Recruiting: 129, 107th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  -6%-6%127th of 127Returning production: -6%, 127th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −31.3−31.3127th of 127SP+ rating: −31.3, 127th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.01 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 FAUQ3 6:47 4th & 1 at MASS 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
2. at LIBQ2 0:38 4th & 15 at LIB 39, down 28Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
3. at GASOQ2 0:25 4th & 9 at GASO 37, down 28Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
4. at MRSHQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at MASS 18, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. at MRSHQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at MRSH 48, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at FAUQ2 0:37 4th & 9 at FAU 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
7. at FAUQ2 14:54 4th & 3 at MASS 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. at GASOQ3 7:35 4th & 3 at MASS 20, down 31Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

59th of 127 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

   GASO
2. L

   MRSH
3. L

   FAU
4. L

   LIB

What moved it, 2020

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−0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.07

Game by game

• GASOL 0-41 at GASO2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• MRSHL 10-51 at MRSH1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• FAUL 2-24 at FAU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• LIBL 0-45 at LIB2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: 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.