Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1975th
  Defense−0.0394th
• 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.
  Offense43.5%56th
  Defense38.3%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3790th
  Defense+1.2066th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1262nd
  Defense−0.0388th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2662nd
  Defense0.0095th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%53rd
  Defense44.0%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%68th
  Defense28.3%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0444th
  Defense2.6292nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%34th
  Defense25.5%97th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.2%87th
  Defense23.6%99th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   PUR
2. W
   OHIO
3. W
   AUB
4. W
   CMU
5. W
   NU
6. L
   MICH
7. W
   MINN
8. L
   OSU
9. W
   IU
10. W
    MD
11. W
    RUTG
12. W
    MSU
13. W
    UTAH

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

Players, 2022

1. Sean CliffordQB334 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 57th of 234 QBs
   1.28WAR0.71 to 1.96
2. Kaytron AllenRB143 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 68th of 384 RBs
   0.36WAR0.26 to 0.47
3. Nicholas SingletonRB118 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 103rd of 384 RBs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.39
4. Parker WashingtonWR48 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 44th of 455 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.30
5. Mitchell TinsleyWR52 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 56th of 455 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.31
6. Barney AmorP41 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 11th of 102 punters
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.23
7. Brenton StrangeTE26 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 45th of 214 TEs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. KeAndre Lambert-SmithWR28 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 243rd of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83083015th of 129Roster talent: 830, 15th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25525513th of 129Recruiting: 255, 13th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%27th of 128Returning production: 76%, 27th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.4+22.48th of 129SP+ rating: +22.4, 8th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.03 of the 0.09 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 RUTGQ3 1:37 4th & 2 at RUTG 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs MDQ3 13:00 4th & 1 at PSU 34, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at MICHQ4 9:06 4th & 11 at PSU 47, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at IUQ3 11:43 4th & 2 at PSU 26, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at RUTGQ1 4:09 4th & 1 at PSU 30, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at IUQ2 10:31 4th & 3 at PSU 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at PURQ2 7:20 4th & 6 at PUR 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs CMUQ3 2:30 4th & 8 at CMU 37, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

14th of 131 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

   PUR
2. W

   OHIO
3. W

   AUB
4. W

   CMU
5. W

   NU
6. L

   MICH
7. W

   MINN
8. L

   OSU
9. W

   IU
10. W

    MD
11. W

    RUTG
12. W

    MSU
13. W

    UTAH

What moved it, 2022

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+1.53
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.97

Game by game

• PURW 35-31 at PUR64% → 85%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +37, Clock +3
• OHIOW 46-10 vs OHIO97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• AUBW 41-12 at AUB62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• CMUW 33-14 vs CMU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8
• NUW 17-7 vs NU95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• MICHL 17-41 at MICH31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32
• MINNW 45-17 vs MINN67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34
• OSUL 31-44 vs OSU14% → 2%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• IUW 45-14 at IU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• MDW 30-0 vs MD79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24
• RUTGW 55-10 at RUTG90% → 10%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +1
• MSUW 35-16 vs MSU90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15
• UTAHW 35-21 at UTAH56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +47, 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.