Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1453rd
  Defense+0.2214th
• 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.
  Offense40.8%30th
  Defense46.3%14th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2755th
  Defense+1.2068th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1362nd
  Defense+0.245th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1643rd
  Defense+0.2130th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%20th
  Defense53.7%8th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%58th
  Defense27.6%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1063rd
  Defense3.512nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%73rd
  Defense11.7%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%30th
  Defense14.0%18th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   EMU
2. L
   TOL
3. L
   BUF
4. W
   CCSU
5. L
   M-OH
6. L
   NIU
7. L
   MIZ
8. W
   WAG
9. L
   MSST
10. L
    LIB
11. L
    UGA
12. L
    CONN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2024

1. Taisun PhommachanhQB213 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 106th of 232 QBs
   0.75WAR0.39 to 1.11
2. AJ Hairston JrQB62 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 164th of 232 QBs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.35
3. CJ HesterRB88 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 149th of 373 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.24
4. Jakobie Keeney-JamesWR31 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 46th of 452 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.26
5. Jalen JohnRB92 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 157th of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
6. Jacob LuriePK17 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 70th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Brandon CampbellRB30 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 278th of 373 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Dominick MazottiTE13 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 101st of 221 TEs
   0.03WAR0.00 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58658682nd of 131Roster talent: 586, 82nd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  105105122nd of 131Recruiting: 105, 122nd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%89th of 130Returning production: 34%, 89th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.9−21.9126th of 131SP+ rating: −21.9, 126th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.25 of the 0.30 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 M-OHQ4 0:40 4th & 1 at M-OH 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−12.2 pts
2. vs CONNQ3 1:45 4th & 1 at MASS 15, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. vs CONNQ3 10:37 4th & 3 at CONN 40, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. at M-OHQ3 13:01 4th & 1 at MASS 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at M-OHQ3 13:01 4th & 1 at MASS 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs LIBQ3 4:01 4th & 2 at MASS 18, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs CONNQ4 0:53 4th & 15 at CONN 22, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
8. at BUFQ2 14:06 4th & 1 at MASS 10, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

117th of 134 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

   EMU
2. L

   TOL
3. L

   BUF
4. W

   CCSU
5. L

   M-OH
6. L

   NIU
7. L

   MIZ
8. W

   WAG
9. L

   MSST
10. L

    LIB
11. L

    UGA
12. L

    CONN

What moved it, 2024

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−1.84
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.67

Game by game

• EMUL 14-28 vs EMU58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• TOLL 23-38 at TOL10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• BUFL 3-34 at BUF43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −1
• CCSUW 35-31 vs CCSU90% → 95%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• M-OHL 20-23 at M-OH14% → 30%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +16: Scoreboard −2, Possession & field position −2
• NIUL 20-34 at NIU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• MIZL 3-45 vs MIZ3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• WAGW 35-7 vs WAG94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• MSSTL 20-45 at MSST10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• LIBL 34-35 vs LIB12% → 10%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −10
• UGAL 21-59 at UGA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• CONNL 42-47 vs CONN26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2

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.