Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2177th
  Defense−0.0495th
• 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.
  Offense46.8%86th
  Defense33.8%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.118th
  Defense+1.2742nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1571st
  Defense−0.0891st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3064th
  Defense+0.1383rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%81st
  Defense38.9%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%85th
  Defense25.5%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4192nd
  Defense2.3099th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense10.8%99th
  Defense25.9%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.2%96th
  Defense22.5%98th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   WVU
2. W
   DEL
3. W
   ILL
4. W
   IOWA
5. W
   NU
6. W
   MASS
7. L
   OSU
8. W
   IU
9. W
   MD
10. L
    MICH
11. W
    RUTG
12. W
    MSU
13. L
    MISS

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

Players, 2023

1. Drew AllarQB324 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 34th of 250 QBs
   1.75WAR1.08 to 2.44
2. Kaytron AllenRB132 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 61st of 383 RBs
   0.32WAR0.21 to 0.43
3. Riley ThompsonP39 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 3rd of 103 punters
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.28
4. Theo JohnsonTE27 plays · +0.332 pts/play · 21st of 212 TEs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
5. Nicholas SingletonRB121 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 175th of 383 RBs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.28
6. Tyler WarrenTE27 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 27th of 212 TEs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. Alex FelkinsPK20 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 18th of 113 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. KeAndre Lambert-SmithWR36 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 226th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.01 to 0.16

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85885813th of 130Roster talent: 858, 13th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25525514th of 130Recruiting: 255, 14th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%81st of 128Returning production: 43%, 81st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.5+23.55th of 130SP+ rating: +23.5, 5th 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, 2023

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 0.10 of the 0.15 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 RUTGQ3 5:32 4th & 1 at RUTG 32, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs IUQ4 7:46 4th & 2 at PSU 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at OSUQ3 0:44 4th & 1 at PSU 11, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs MICHQ3 0:12 4th & 2 at PSU 46, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs MISSQ3 8:39 4th & 1 at PSU 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs MICHQ2 9:44 4th & 1 at PSU 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at OSUQ1 1:01 4th & 1 at PSU 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at MDQ3 6:08 4th & 2 at PSU 37, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

81st of 133 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

   WVU
2. W

   DEL
3. W

   ILL
4. W

   IOWA
5. W

   NU
6. W

   MASS
7. L

   OSU
8. W

   IU
9. W

   MD
10. L

    MICH
11. W

    RUTG
12. W

    MSU
13. L

    MISS

What moved it, 2023

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−0.04
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.37

Game by game

• WVUW 38-15 vs WVU92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• DELW 63-7 vs DEL99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ILLW 30-13 at ILL86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• IOWAW 31-0 vs IOWA85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• NUW 41-13 at NU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• MASSW 63-0 vs MASS99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• OSUL 12-20 at OSU36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35
• IUW 33-24 vs IU98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +7
• MDW 51-15 at MD70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position +1
• MICHL 15-24 vs MICH35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• RUTGW 27-6 vs RUTG91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +13
• MSUW 42-0 at MSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• MISSL 25-38 vs MISS64% → 1%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3

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.