Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0424th
  Defense+0.0180th
• 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.
  Offense37.8%13th
  Defense38.4%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2884th
  Defense+1.1853rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0222nd
  Defense+0.0267th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1239th
  Defense0.0085th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.4%17th
  Defense46.2%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.6%8th
  Defense25.4%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5412th
  Defense2.6078th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.2%3rd
  Defense20.6%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%83rd
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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. L
   TEM
2. W
   BUF
3. W
   RUTG
4. W
   SDSU
5. W
   ARMY
6. W
   IU
7. L
   OSU
8. W
   MD
9. W
   ILL
10. L
    NU
11. L
    MICH
12. L
    MSU
13. L
    UGA

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

Players, 2015

1. Christian HackenbergQB374 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 90th of 205 QBs
   1.05WAR0.49 to 1.61
2. Chris GodwinWR95 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 4th of 411 WRs
   0.45WAR0.28 to 0.62
3. Saquon BarkleyRB174 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 33rd of 333 RBs
   0.42WAR0.29 to 0.55
4. DaeSean HamiltonWR67 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 98th of 411 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.29
5. Akeel LynchRB57 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 189th of 333 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Geno LewisWR29 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 217th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Brandon PolkWR15 plays · +0.039 pts/play · 388th of 411 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03
8. Brent WilkersonTE7 plays · −0.022 pts/play · 40th of 189 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73273221st of 128Roster talent: 732, 21st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23623619th of 128Recruiting: 236, 19th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%40th of 127Returning production: 75%, 40th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.3+11.332nd of 128SP+ rating: +11.3, 32nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.24 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 MICHQ4 8:05 4th & 1 at MICH 1, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.8 pts
2. vs SDSUQ3 8:02 4th & 1 at PSU 35, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at TEMQ3 9:58 4th & 4 at TEM 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at MSUQ2 14:14 4th & 1 at MSU 1, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs ARMYQ4 10:59 4th & 3 at PSU 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at OSUQ3 3:18 4th & 1 at PSU 45, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at NUQ4 2:13 4th & 2 at PSU 14, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs BUFQ3 0:20 4th & 4 at BUF 4, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

79th of 128 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. L

   TEM
2. W

   BUF
3. W

   RUTG
4. W

   SDSU
5. W

   ARMY
6. W

   IU
7. L

   OSU
8. W

   MD
9. W

   ILL
10. L

    NU
11. L

    MICH
12. L

    MSU
13. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2015

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+0.08
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.58

Game by game

• TEML 10-27 at TEM85% → 1%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −54, Possession & field position −2
• BUFW 27-14 vs BUF87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• RUTGW 28-3 vs RUTG73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −2
• SDSUW 37-21 vs SDSU82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position +1
• ARMYW 20-14 vs ARMY46% → 95%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• IUW 29-7 vs IU77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26
• OSUL 10-38 at OSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• MDW 31-30 at MD76% → 82%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +29, Clock +3
• ILLW 39-0 vs ILL65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• NUL 21-23 at NU52% → 14%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position −2
• MICHL 16-28 vs MICH42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• MSUL 16-55 at MSU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28
• UGAL 17-24 at UGA34% → 10%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1

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.