Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1668th
  Defense+0.0670th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%45th
  Defense40.6%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3394th
  Defense+1.2041st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0541st
  Defense+0.0174th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3286th
  Defense+0.1554th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.0%30th
  Defense44.5%76th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.8%74th
  Defense33.4%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.454th
  Defense2.6777th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.3%7th
  Defense22.4%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%34th
  Defense18.3%77th

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, 2016

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
   KENT
2. L
   PITT
3. W
   TEM
4. L
   MICH
5. W
   MINN
6. W
   MD
7. W
   OSU
8. W
   PUR
9. W
   IOWA
10. W
    IU
11. W
    RUTG
12. W
    MSU
13. W
    WIS
14. L
    USC

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

Players, 2016

1. Trace McSorleyQB474 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 14th of 218 QBs
   2.18WAR1.44 to 3.04
2. Saquon BarkleyRB281 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 4th of 347 RBs
   1.00WAR0.68 to 1.28
3. Chris GodwinWR80 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 14th of 417 WRs
   0.37WAR0.25 to 0.49
4. Blake GillikinP54 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 7th of 82 punters
   0.24WAR0.12 to 0.37
5. Tyler DavisPK21 plays · +0.388 pts/play · 24th of 116 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
6. DaeSean HamiltonWR52 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 164th of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
7. DeAndre ThompkinsWR39 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 241st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Saeed BlacknallWR23 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 286th of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74374320th of 128Roster talent: 743, 20th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23623618th of 128Recruiting: 236, 18th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%69th of 128Returning production: 65%, 69th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.0+19.011th of 128SP+ rating: +19.0, 11th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.25 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 5:14 4th & 1 at WIS 6, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−7.3 pts
2. vs MINNQ4 13:29 4th & 1 at PSU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
3. vs WISQ4 0:00 4th & 11 at PSU 23, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.7 pts
4. vs MINNQ2 12:00 4th & 1 at MINN 1, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs MSUQ2 13:11 4th & 1 at MSU 17, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at PITTQ4 2:15 4th & 16 at PSU 34, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs IOWAQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at IOWA 12, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs MDQ3 4:47 4th & 3 at PSU 44, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

2nd 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. W

   KENT
2. L

   PITT
3. W

   TEM
4. L

   MICH
5. W

   MINN
6. W

   MD
7. W

   OSU
8. W

   PUR
9. W

   IOWA
10. W

    IU
11. W

    RUTG
12. W

    MSU
13. W

    WIS
14. L

    USC

What moved it, 2016

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+2.36
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• KENTW 33-13 vs KENT91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +13
• PITTL 39-42 at PITT38% → 10%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• TEMW 34-27 vs TEM70% → 97%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• MICHL 10-49 at MICH15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• MINNW 29-26 vs MINN59% → 85%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −22
• MDW 38-14 vs MD59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• OSUW 24-21 vs OSU11% → 95%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• PURW 62-24 at PUR78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• IOWAW 41-14 vs IOWA68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33
• IUW 45-31 at IU71% → 98%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• RUTGW 39-0 at RUTG93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• MSUW 45-12 vs MSU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• WISW 38-31 vs WIS52% → 96%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• USCL 49-52 vs USC34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −40, 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.