Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0822nd
  Defense+0.0192nd
• 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.
  Offense40.5%27th
  Defense37.9%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2957th
  Defense+1.1296th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.037th
  Defense+0.0189th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1732nd
  Defense+0.0293rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%20th
  Defense44.6%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%54th
  Defense25.0%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.677th
  Defense2.6989th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%2nd
  Defense21.9%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%60th
  Defense16.0%36th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2021

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
   WIS
2. W
   BALL
3. W
   AUB
4. W
   VILL
5. W
   IU
6. L
   IOWA
7. L
   ILL
8. L
   OSU
9. W
   MD
10. L
    MICH
11. W
    RUTG
12. L
    MSU
13. L
    ARK

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

Players, 2021

1. Sean CliffordQB449 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 37th of 219 QBs
   1.93WAR1.09 to 2.76
2. Keyvone LeeRB105 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 110th of 387 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.46
3. Jahan DotsonWR102 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 13th of 474 WRs
   0.35WAR0.23 to 0.47
4. Noah CainRB97 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 152nd of 387 RBs
   0.30WAR0.23 to 0.37
5. Jordan StoutPK61 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 2nd of 128 kickers
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.35
6. Parker WashingtonWR59 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 42nd of 474 WRs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.30
7. KeAndre Lambert-SmithWR36 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 191st of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
8. John LovettRB44 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 291st of 387 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  82182116th of 130Roster talent: 821, 16th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25725713th of 130Recruiting: 257, 13th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%46th of 128Returning production: 84%, 46th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.3+14.319th of 130SP+ rating: +14.3, 19th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2021

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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 OSUQ4 5:55 4th & 5 at PSU 30, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at WISQ3 5:54 4th & 3 at WIS 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs IUQ3 12:06 4th & 1 at PSU 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs RUTGQ2 7:30 4th & 1 at PSU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at MSUQ2 14:03 4th & 1 at PSU 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at ARKQ2 0:45 4th & 13 at ARK 36, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. at WISQ4 11:26 4th & 2 at WIS 7, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs IUQ2 2:40 4th & 1 at PSU 22, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

104th of 130 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

   WIS
2. W

   BALL
3. W

   AUB
4. W

   VILL
5. W

   IU
6. L

   IOWA
7. L

   ILL
8. L

   OSU
9. W

   MD
10. L

    MICH
11. W

    RUTG
12. L

    MSU
13. L

    ARK

What moved it, 2021

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−0.13
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.06
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.59

Game by game

• WISW 16-10 at WIS35% → 80%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• BALLW 44-13 vs BALL93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• AUBW 28-20 vs AUB61% → 90%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position −3
• VILLW 38-17 vs VILL97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• IUW 24-0 vs IU82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• IOWAL 20-23 at IOWA45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• ILLL 18-20 vs ILL94% → 61%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −33: Timeouts +1, Clock −1
• OSUL 24-33 at OSU11% → 4%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• MDW 31-14 at MD75% → 98%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• MICHL 17-21 vs MICH43% → 5%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• RUTGW 28-0 vs RUTG83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• MSUL 27-30 at MSU66% → 5%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −2
• ARKL 10-24 at ARK45% → 1%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −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.