Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.029th
  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.
  Offense37.5%12th
  Defense48.5%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2749th
  Defense+1.462nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1457th
  Defense+0.269th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.072nd
  Defense+0.533rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.2%9th
  Defense53.0%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.
  Offense28.3%20th
  Defense37.4%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0243rd
  Defense3.1139th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%47th
  Defense15.7%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.7%5th
  Defense13.1%9th

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, 2021

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
   PITT
2. L
   BC
3. L
   EMU
4. L
   CCU
5. L
   TOL
6. W
   CONN
7. L
   FSU
8. L
   LIB
9. L
   URI
10. L
    ME
11. L
    ARMY
12. L
    NMSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2021

1. Ellis MerriweatherRB67 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 176th of 387 RBs
   0.26WAR0.21 to 0.33
2. Brady OlsonQB39 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 185th of 219 QBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
3. Garrett DzuroQB23 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 195th of 219 QBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
4. Zamar WiseWR10 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 450th of 474 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  227227125th of 130Roster talent: 227, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130108th of 130Recruiting: 130, 108th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  -310%-310%128th of 128Returning production: -310%, 128th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −29.3−29.3130th of 130SP+ rating: −29.3, 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, 2021

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.08 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 CONNQ3 9:27 4th & 3 at CONN 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs CONNQ2 8:10 4th & 1 at MASS 23, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs MEQ4 14:51 4th & 2 at ME 18, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs CONNQ2 13:40 4th & 1 at MASS 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs MEQ3 8:05 4th & 2 at MASS 20, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at NMSUQ4 7:04 4th & 11 at MASS 24, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs CONNQ4 14:56 4th & 4 at CONN 10, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs BCQ3 10:10 4th & 1 at MASS 17, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

79th 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

   PITT
2. L

   BC
3. L

   EMU
4. L

   CCU
5. L

   TOL
6. W

   CONN
7. L

   FSU
8. L

   LIB
9. L

   URI
10. L

    ME
11. L

    ARMY
12. L

    NMSU

What moved it, 2021

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−0.89
• Clock−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.38

Game by game

• PITTL 7-51 at PITT0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• BCL 28-45 vs BC0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• EMUL 28-42 vs EMU2% → 2%Before kickoff −48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −8
• CCUL 3-53 at CCU0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• TOLL 7-45 vs TOL1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• CONNW 27-13 vs CONN42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts −1
• FSUL 3-59 at FSU0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• LIBL 17-62 at LIB0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• URIL 22-35 vs URI63% → 2%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• MEL 10-35 vs ME44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
• ARMYL 17-33 at ARMY0% → 2%Before kickoff −50 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −3
• NMSUL 27-44 at NMSU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12, Clock +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.