Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.093rd
  Defense+0.1819th
• 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.
  Offense32.6%1st
  Defense41.2%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.116th
  Defense+1.398th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0214th
  Defense+0.1814th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.062nd
  Defense+0.2824th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.9%1st
  Defense46.6%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense19.8%1st
  Defense29.8%58th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7910th
  Defense3.2130th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%39th
  Defense19.7%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%21st
  Defense18.0%76th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   TULN
2. L
   TOL
3. W
   STBK
4. L
   TEM
5. L
   EMU
6. L
   LIB
7. L
   BUF
8. L
   NMSU
9. L
   CONN
10. L
    ARST
11. L
    TA&M
12. L
    ARMY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2022

1. Ellis MerriweatherRB98 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 138th of 384 RBs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.31
2. Garrett DzuroQB58 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 168th of 234 QBs
   0.22WAR0.10 to 0.35
3. Brady OlsonQB133 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 181st of 234 QBs
   0.18WAR−0.09 to 0.47
4. Kay'Ron Lynch-AdamsRB64 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 235th of 384 RBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.17
5. Gino CampiottiTE57 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 37th of 214 TEs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.17
6. Cameron Sullivan-BrownWR25 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 285th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
7. Cameron CarsonPK12 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 86th of 110 kickers
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07
8. Josiah JohnsonTE23 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 169th of 214 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.05

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  292292122nd of 129Roster talent: 292, 122nd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  126126112th of 129Recruiting: 126, 112th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%21st of 128Returning production: 78%, 21st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −30.3−30.3129th of 129SP+ rating: −30.3, 129th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.23 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 10:57 4th & 4 at LIB 35, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. vs NMSUQ4 9:14 4th & 3 at NMSU 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. at CONNQ3 1:31 4th & 1 at CONN 10, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs NMSUQ2 2:09 4th & 1 at MASS 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. vs NMSUQ3 2:01 4th & 3 at MASS 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. vs STBKQ3 10:32 4th & 3 at MASS 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs STBKQ2 8:22 4th & 11 at STBK 30, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs STBKQ4 9:04 4th & 1 at STBK 47, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

112th of 131 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

   TULN
2. L

   TOL
3. W

   STBK
4. L

   TEM
5. L

   EMU
6. L

   LIB
7. L

   BUF
8. L

   NMSU
9. L

   CONN
10. L

    ARST
11. L

    TA&M
12. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2022

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−1.07
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.95

Game by game

• TULNL 10-42 at TULN4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• TOLL 10-55 at TOL4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• STBKW 20-3 vs STBK55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• TEML 0-28 at TEM24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +1
• EMUL 13-20 at EMU12% → 2%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• LIBL 24-42 vs LIB10% → 98%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +88: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +1
• BUFL 7-34 vs BUF15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• NMSUL 13-23 vs NMSU52% → 4%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• CONNL 10-27 at CONN18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• ARSTL 33-35 at ARST14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• TA&ML 3-20 at TA&M2% → 1%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −6
• ARMYL 7-44 vs ARMY13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19

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.