Massachusetts

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.111st
  Defense+0.262nd
• 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.
  Offense33.7%1st
  Defense48.0%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2136th
  Defense+1.1687th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.112nd
  Defense+0.187th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.094th
  Defense+0.385th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.7%1st
  Defense53.4%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.
  Offense25.3%13th
  Defense32.6%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.051st
  Defense3.531st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.7%1st
  Defense11.1%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.9%4th
  Defense8.5%1st

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   TEM
2. L
   BRY
3. L
   IOWA
4. L
   MIZ
5. L
   WMU
6. L
   KENT
7. L
   BUF
8. L
   CMU
9. L
   AKR
10. L
    NIU
11. L
    OHIO
12. L
    BGSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Massachusetts.

Players, 2025

1. AJ Hairston JrQB117 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 133rd of 231 QBs
   0.45WAR0.20 to 0.71
2. Brandon RoseQB72 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 181st of 231 QBs
   0.14WAR0.00 to 0.29
3. Brandon HoodRB70 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 192nd of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
4. Jacquon GibsonWR52 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.21
5. Grant JordanQB45 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 196th of 231 QBs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.19
6. Max DowlingTE18 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 101st of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
7. Derek MorrisPK9 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 102nd of 112 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  489489118th of 134Roster talent: 489, 118th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8484127th of 134Recruiting: 84, 127th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  23%23%88th of 132Returning production: 23%, 88th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −36.6−36.6134th of 134SP+ rating: −36.6, 134th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.03 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 BUFQ4 3:09 4th & 11 at BUF 36, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. at KENTQ3 4:17 4th & 4 at MASS 31, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs WMUQ2 6:14 4th & 2 at MASS 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs WMUQ4 14:02 4th & 5 at WMU 13, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs WMUQ4 14:02 4th & 5 at WMU 13, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TEMQ4 10:23 4th & 10 at MASS 35, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs WMUQ4 0:51 4th & 12 at WMU 12, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at CMUQ4 1:44 4th & 3 at CMU 19, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

127th of 136 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

   TEM
2. L

   BRY
3. L

   IOWA
4. L

   MIZ
5. L

   WMU
6. L

   KENT
7. L

   BUF
8. L

   CMU
9. L

   AKR
10. L

    NIU
11. L

    OHIO
12. L

    BGSU

What moved it, 2025

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−2.45
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• TEML 10-42 vs TEM39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• BRYL 26-27 vs BRY85% → 33%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• IOWAL 7-47 at IOWA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• MIZL 6-42 at MIZ0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• WMUL 3-21 vs WMU17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• KENTL 6-42 at KENT41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts +8
• BUFL 21-28 vs BUF9% → 2%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9, Timeouts −8
• CMUL 13-38 at CMU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• AKRL 10-44 at AKR18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21
• NIUL 3-45 vs NIU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• OHIOL 14-42 at OHIO2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• BGSUL 14-45 vs BGSU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21

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.