Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0836th
  Defense+0.0574th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%60th
  Defense39.6%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2132nd
  Defense+1.2549th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0134th
  Defense−0.0382nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1652nd
  Defense+0.1365th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%30th
  Defense46.6%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.6%94th
  Defense25.7%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9456th
  Defense2.5683rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%67th
  Defense20.2%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%77th
  Defense17.2%58th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   IU
2. L
   OSU
3. L
   MD
4. L
   NEB
5. L
   IOWA
6. W
   MICH
7. W
   RUTG
8. W
   MSU
9. W
   ILL

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

Players, 2020

1. Sean CliffordQB269 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 34th of 212 QBs
   0.81WAR0.33 to 1.27
2. Will LevisQB116 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 92nd of 212 QBs
   0.34WAR0.05 to 0.64
3. Keyvone LeeRB89 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 98th of 338 RBs
   0.31WAR0.25 to 0.37
4. Jahan DotsonWR61 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 20th of 409 WRs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.28
5. Devyn FordRB69 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 173rd of 338 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
6. Parker WashingtonWR45 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 114th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Pat FreiermuthTE32 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 13th of 191 TEs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
8. Jake PinegarPK11 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 42nd of 97 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85185111th of 127Roster talent: 851, 11th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26326312th of 127Recruiting: 263, 12th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%29th of 127Returning production: 79%, 29th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.9+13.916th of 127SP+ rating: +13.9, 16th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.07 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 NEBQ4 3:48 4th & 10 at NEB 11, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.4 pts
2. at RUTGQ3 2:48 4th & 1 at PSU 34, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at MICHQ3 0:40 4th & 3 at MICH 16, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at NEBQ3 12:39 4th & 8 at NEB 39, down 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at IUQ4 9:19 4th & 10 at IU 44, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at RUTGQ2 11:37 4th & 4 at RUTG 12, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at IUQ1 5:19 4th & 2 at PSU 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at RUTGQ1 8:27 4th & 13 at RUTG 31, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

127th of 127 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

   IU
2. L

   OSU
3. L

   MD
4. L

   NEB
5. L

   IOWA
6. W

   MICH
7. W

   RUTG
8. W

   MSU
9. W

   ILL

What moved it, 2020

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−1.33
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.26
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.93

Game by game

• IUL 35-36 at IU72% → 17%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +24
• OSUL 25-38 vs OSU27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• MDL 19-35 vs MD96% → 1%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −95: Scoreboard −58, Clock −4
• NEBL 23-30 at NEB60% → 2%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• IOWAL 21-41 vs IOWA59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −59, Clock −1
• MICHW 27-17 at MICH52% → 91%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• RUTGW 23-7 at RUTG83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• MSUW 39-24 vs MSU89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• ILLW 56-21 vs ILL88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +14

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.