Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1756th
  Defense+0.1043rd
• 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.
  Offense40.4%29th
  Defense40.3%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2969th
  Defense+1.2837th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0123rd
  Defense+0.237th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3877th
  Defense0.0086th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%23rd
  Defense47.2%42nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.8%31st
  Defense26.0%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7018th
  Defense2.9940th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.8%80th
  Defense21.4%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%67th
  Defense17.1%67th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Penn State 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
   MRSH
2. W
   TEM
3. W
   BUF
4. L
   WIS
5. L
   NU
6. L
   USC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Penn State.

Players, 2026

1. Rocco BechtQB154 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 58th of 192 QBs
   0.30WAR0.04 to 0.52
2. Carson HansenRB49 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 45th of 320 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
3. Chase SowellWR31 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 46th of 364 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
4. James PeoplesRB42 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 152nd of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
5. Ryan BarkerPK10 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 6th of 82 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
6. Benjamin BrahmerTE18 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 16th of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Brett EskildsenWR22 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 177th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
8. Andrew RappleyeaTE19 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 31st of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07

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 Penn State'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77477426th of 138Roster talent: 774, 26th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24624619th of 138Recruiting: 246, 19th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  8%8%123rd of 136Returning production: 8%, 123rd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.6+9.638th of 138SP+ rating so far: +9.6, 38th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Penn State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.04 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 WISQ4 14:54 4th & 1 at PSU 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. vs MRSHQ2 8:36 4th & 1 at PSU 19, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at NUQ1 2:00 4th & 2 at PSU 44, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at TEMQ2 6:51 4th & 4 at TEM 13, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at NUQ2 7:51 4th & 3 at PSU 27, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at TEMQ1 10:00 4th & 4 at TEM 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs WISQ1 6:16 4th & 4 at WIS 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs MRSHQ4 12:36 4th & 3 at MRSH 43, up 38Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

130th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Penn State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MRSH
2. W

   TEM
3. W

   BUF
4. L

   WIS
5. L

   NU
6. L

   USC

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Penn State'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−0.98
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.16

Game by game

• MRSHW 45-0 vs MRSH90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• TEMW 27-9 at TEM92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• BUFW 55-13 vs BUF99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• WISL 20-24 vs WIS72% → 14%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −43, Possession & field position −3
• NUL 13-34 at NU48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −1
• USCL 23-31 vs USC37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Penn State's side.

Closest call

GAST 0-56 PSU (2017) - Penn State dropped to a 1.9% win probability before pulling it out.