Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1875th
  Defense+0.0469th
• 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.
  Offense46.3%81st
  Defense41.2%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1925th
  Defense+1.1684th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1780th
  Defense+0.0647th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2158th
  Defense+0.0877th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.6%83rd
  Defense47.3%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.1%59th
  Defense27.0%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1273rd
  Defense2.9739th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%75th
  Defense18.2%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.5%71st
  Defense15.9%54th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   NEV
2. W
   FIU
3. W
   VILL
4. L
   ORE
5. L
   UCLA
6. L
   NU
7. L
   IOWA
8. L
   OSU
9. L
   IU
10. W
    MSU
11. W
    NEB
12. W
    RUTG
13. W
    CLEM

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

Players, 2025

1. Ethan GrunkemeyerQB182 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 107th of 231 QBs
   0.74WAR0.39 to 1.07
2. Drew AllarQB81 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 145th of 231 QBs
   0.38WAR0.21 to 0.53
3. Kaytron AllenRB172 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 33rd of 365 RBs
   0.33WAR0.24 to 0.42
4. Nicholas SingletonRB99 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 73rd of 365 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.31
5. Devonte RossWR44 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 90th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
6. Trebor PenaWR52 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 139th of 451 WRs
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.23
7. Ryan BarkerPK9 plays · +0.363 pts/play · 82nd of 112 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Andrew RappleyeaTE19 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 85th of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  91091010th of 134Roster talent: 910, 10th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26726710th of 134Recruiting: 267, 10th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%29th of 132Returning production: 56%, 29th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.1+18.115th of 134SP+ rating: +18.1, 15th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.02 of the 0.05 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 MSUQ3 4:02 4th & 3 at MSU 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at RUTGQ3 8:53 4th & 3 at RUTG 11, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs OREQ3 9:11 4th & 9 at ORE 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs NEBQ2 12:20 4th & 3 at NEB 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at UCLAQ2 0:27 4th & 2 at UCLA 36, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs OREQ2 13:26 4th & 4 at ORE 32, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at IOWAQ1 2:14 4th & 2 at PSU 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs VILLQ3 10:02 4th & 4 at VILL 25, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

120th of 136 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

   NEV
2. W

   FIU
3. W

   VILL
4. L

   ORE
5. L

   UCLA
6. L

   NU
7. L

   IOWA
8. L

   OSU
9. L

   IU
10. W

    MSU
11. W

    NEB
12. W

    RUTG
13. W

    CLEM

What moved it, 2025

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−0.54
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.95

Game by game

• NEVW 46-11 vs NEV99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• FIUW 34-0 vs FIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• VILLW 52-6 vs VILL99% → 96%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +4
• OREL 24-30 vs ORE63% → 32%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position +4
• UCLAL 37-42 at UCLA95% → 1%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −94: Scoreboard −73, Timeouts +22
• NUL 21-22 vs NU93% → 7%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −86: Timeouts −28, Scoreboard −19
• IOWAL 24-25 at IOWA47% → 12%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +7
• OSUL 14-38 at OSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18
• IUL 24-27 vs IU23% → 16%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −30, Clock −3
• MSUW 28-10 at MSU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• NEBW 37-10 vs NEB70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• RUTGW 40-36 at RUTG83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• CLEMW 22-10 at CLEM43% → 98%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +55, 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.