Rutgers

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1050th
  Defense+0.2210th
• 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.
  Offense44.4%63rd
  Defense47.5%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1425th
  Defense+1.396th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0545th
  Defense+0.1223rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1755th
  Defense+0.337th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%75th
  Defense50.8%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%32nd
  Defense39.3%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8447th
  Defense2.7361st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%43rd
  Defense22.3%69th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense2.5%79th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Rutgers 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
   NORF
2. L
   WSU
3. L
   PSU
4. W
   KU
5. L
   MSU
6. W
   IU
7. L
   OSU
8. L
   WIS
9. L
   MICH
10. L
    NEB
11. W
    ARMY
12. L
    MD

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rutgers.

Players, 2015

1. Chris LavianoQB294 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 89th of 205 QBs
   1.05WAR0.61 to 1.49
2. Robert MartinRB116 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 69th of 333 RBs
   0.30WAR0.21 to 0.40
3. Leonte CarrooWR52 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 54th of 411 WRs
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.32
4. Josh HicksRB86 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 107th of 333 RBs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.29
5. Paul JamesRB81 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 109th of 333 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
6. Kyle FedericoPK13 plays · +0.395 pts/play · 77th of 115 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
7. Janarion GrantWR47 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 262nd of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Andre PattonWR33 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 272nd of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11

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 Rutgers'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60260247th of 128Roster talent: 602, 47th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17317355th of 128Recruiting: 173, 55th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%96th of 127Returning production: 46%, 96th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.1−10.1101st of 128SP+ rating: −10.1, 101st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Rutgers'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 0.03 of the 0.08 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 MDQ3 10:47 4th & 1 at RUTG 28, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs OSUQ2 8:56 4th & 2 at OSU 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at IUQ2 13:50 4th & 8 at RUTG 27, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs OSUQ2 4:30 4th & 1 at RUTG 30, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs NEBQ3 1:58 4th & 4 at RUTG 31, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at ARMYQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at RUTG 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs NEBQ2 0:24 4th & 11 at NEB 37, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs KUQ4 4:24 4th & 5 at KU 42, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

86th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Rutgers's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   NORF
2. L

   WSU
3. L

   PSU
4. W

   KU
5. L

   MSU
6. W

   IU
7. L

   OSU
8. L

   WIS
9. L

   MICH
10. L

    NEB
11. W

    ARMY
12. L

    MD

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Rutgers'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−0.87
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• NORFW 63-13 vs NORF77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25
• WSUL 34-37 vs WSU65% → 6%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• PSUL 3-28 at PSU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts +2
• KUW 27-14 vs KU82% → 98%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• MSUL 24-31 vs MSU13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• IUW 55-52 at IU35% → 94%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• OSUL 7-49 vs OSU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12, Clock −1
• WISL 10-48 at WIS10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• MICHL 16-49 at MICH8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• NEBL 14-31 vs NEB25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• ARMYW 31-21 at ARMY70% → 96%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +37, Clock +3
• MDL 41-46 vs MD47% → 5%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Rutgers's side.

Closest call

HOW 14-52 RUTG (2016) - Rutgers dropped to a 2.6% win probability before pulling it out.