Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1145th
  Defense+0.273rd
• 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.
  Offense41.8%47th
  Defense48.7%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3278th
  Defense+1.2556th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1882nd
  Defense+0.311st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1328th
  Defense+0.2730th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%33rd
  Defense53.5%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%59th
  Defense37.0%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3586th
  Defense3.841st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.1%78th
  Defense7.7%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.9%3rd
  Defense14.9%20th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   NMSU
2. L
   AUB
3. L
   M-OH
4. L
   EMU
5. L
   UNM
6. L
   ARST
7. L
   TOL
8. L
   PSU
9. W
   ARMY
10. W
    MRMK
11. L
    LIB
12. L
    CONN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2023

1. Taisun PhommachanhQB144 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 129th of 250 QBs
   0.50WAR0.14 to 0.88
2. Carlos DavisQB108 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 150th of 250 QBs
   0.35WAR0.08 to 0.61
3. Kay'Ron Lynch-AdamsRB156 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 82nd of 383 RBs
   0.27WAR0.10 to 0.44
4. Gino CampiottiTE20 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 91st of 212 TEs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
5. Cameron CarsonPK13 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 93rd of 113 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
6. Mark PopeWR29 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 308th of 457 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09
7. Anthony SimpsonWR71 plays · +0.029 pts/play · 311th of 457 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.11 to 0.20
8. Greg Desrosiers Jr.RB12 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 314th of 383 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56656676th of 130Roster talent: 566, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111120th of 130Recruiting: 111, 120th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%62nd of 128Returning production: 53%, 62nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.5−17.5122nd of 130SP+ rating: −17.5, 122nd 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, 2023

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 0.08 of the 0.14 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 TOLQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at TOL 41, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.2 pts
2. at EMUQ3 0:45 4th & 1 at MASS 24, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it1.9 pts
3. at EMUQ4 0:53 4th & 22 at MASS 13, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.8 pts
4. at ARMYQ4 0:08 4th & 11 at ARMY 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal1.0 pts
5. at ARMYQ2 11:11 4th & 3 at ARMY 24, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
6. vs TOLQ3 5:23 4th & 4 at TOL 32, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs TOLQ2 1:20 4th & 6 at TOL 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
8. vs UNMQ4 2:51 4th & 18 at UNM 44, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

97th of 133 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

   NMSU
2. L

   AUB
3. L

   M-OH
4. L

   EMU
5. L

   UNM
6. L

   ARST
7. L

   TOL
8. L

   PSU
9. W

   ARMY
10. W

    MRMK
11. L

    LIB
12. L

    CONN

What moved it, 2023

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−1.14
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.56

Game by game

• NMSUW 41-30 at NMSU24% → 95%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +60, Possession & field position −4
• AUBL 14-59 at AUB1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• M-OHL 28-41 vs M-OH29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• EMUL 17-19 at EMU27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• UNML 31-34 vs UNM61% → 12%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −20
• ARSTL 28-52 vs ARST54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −56, Clock −1
• TOLL 24-41 vs TOL9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• PSUL 0-63 at PSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• ARMYW 21-14 at ARMY24% → 92%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• MRMKW 31-21 vs MRMK87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• LIBL 25-49 at LIB5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• CONNL 18-31 vs CONN51% → 2%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −52, Clock −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.