Rutgers

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.045th
  Defense+0.1239th
• 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.
  Offense37.7%8th
  Defense43.7%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+0.991st
  Defense+1.0983rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0415th
  Defense+0.0841st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0311th
  Defense+0.2031st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%19th
  Defense48.0%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.4%1st
  Defense34.8%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6623rd
  Defense3.0726th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.7%15th
  Defense14.6%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.1%15th
  Defense15.0%33rd

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, 2017

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. L
   WASH
2. L
   EMU
3. W
   MORG
4. L
   NEB
5. L
   OSU
6. W
   ILL
7. W
   PUR
8. L
   MICH
9. W
   MD
10. L
    PSU
11. L
    IU
12. L
    MSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rutgers.

Players, 2017

1. Gus EdwardsRB133 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 85th of 352 RBs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.42
2. Kyle BolinQB93 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 159th of 226 QBs
   0.29WAR0.13 to 0.45
3. Robert MartinRB76 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 161st of 352 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.27
4. Giovanni RescignoQB110 plays · +0.041 pts/play · 201st of 226 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.10 to 0.29
5. Janarion GrantWR27 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 329th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
6. Ryan AndersonP57 plays · +0.014 pts/play · 66th of 95 punters
   0.01WAR−0.12 to 0.14
7. Jawuan HarrisWR3 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 419th of 426 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
8. Jerome WashingtonTE29 plays · +0.004 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.04

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57557551st of 130Roster talent: 575, 51st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17517553rd of 130Recruiting: 175, 53rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%82nd of 128Returning production: 54%, 82nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.5−5.592nd of 128SP+ rating: −5.5, 92nd of 128 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, 2017

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.14 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 WASHQ3 11:54 4th & 1 at WASH 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs PURQ3 3:14 4th & 2 at RUTG 39, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs MDQ3 11:58 4th & 3 at MD 45, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs PURQ4 15:00 4th & 5 at PUR 41, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs WASHQ3 4:41 4th & 1 at RUTG 43, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at IUQ3 11:33 4th & 1 at RUTG 30, down 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at PSUQ3 13:10 4th & 1 at RUTG 17, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs EMUQ1 2:32 4th & 1 at RUTG 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

46th of 130 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. L

   WASH
2. L

   EMU
3. W

   MORG
4. L

   NEB
5. L

   OSU
6. W

   ILL
7. W

   PUR
8. L

   MICH
9. W

   MD
10. L

    PSU
11. L

    IU
12. L

    MSU

What moved it, 2017

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−0.09
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.64

Game by game

• WASHL 14-30 vs WASH4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −12
• EMUL 13-16 vs EMU65% → 16%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• MORGW 65-0 vs MORG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• NEBL 17-27 at NEB26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• OSUL 0-56 vs OSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• ILLW 35-24 at ILL47% → 97%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• PURW 14-12 vs PUR27% → 92%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• MICHL 14-35 at MICH6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• MDW 31-24 vs MD38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +2
• PSUL 6-35 at PSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• IUL 0-41 at IU23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −24
• MSUL 7-40 vs MSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1

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.