Rutgers

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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.
  Offense0.005th
  Defense+0.1927th
• 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.
  Offense39.3%19th
  Defense39.8%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.051st
  Defense+1.399th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0626th
  Defense+0.0764th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.042nd
  Defense+0.408th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%36th
  Defense43.3%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.4%2nd
  Defense33.1%32nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0647th
  Defense2.9162nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.8%78th
  Defense16.7%49th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%41st
  Defense17.2%60th

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, 2021

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
   TEM
2. W
   SYR
3. W
   DEL
4. L
   MICH
5. L
   OSU
6. L
   MSU
7. L
   NU
8. W
   ILL
9. L
   WIS
10. W
    IU
11. L
    PSU
12. L
    MD
13. L
    WAKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rutgers.

Players, 2021

1. Noah VedralQB339 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 122nd of 219 QBs
   0.53WAR−0.20 to 1.14
2. Isaih PachecoRB155 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 76th of 387 RBs
   0.46WAR0.33 to 0.61
3. Adam KorsakP62 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 1st of 101 punters
   0.35WAR0.23 to 0.49
4. Kyle MonangaiRB57 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 218th of 387 RBs
   0.20WAR0.16 to 0.24
5. Bo MeltonWR69 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 74th of 474 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.26
6. Aaron YoungRB52 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 246th of 387 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.19
7. Shameen JonesWR40 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 282nd of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Valentino AmbrosioPK15 plays · +0.281 pts/play · 55th of 128 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57357364th of 130Roster talent: 573, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18018058th of 130Recruiting: 180, 58th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  93%93%17th of 128Returning production: 93%, 17th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.0−3.088th of 130SP+ rating: −3.0, 88th 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, 2021

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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 ILLQ4 9:42 4th & 3 at RUTG 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at NUQ2 0:00 4th & 11 at NU 48, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.7 pts
3. vs MDQ2 2:38 4th & 1 at RUTG 34, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs MSUQ3 9:14 4th & 2 at MSU 47, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at PSUQ2 5:40 4th & 1 at RUTG 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs MSUQ4 8:27 4th & 7 at MSU 8, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at IUQ1 7:45 4th & 1 at RUTG 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs OSUQ1 4:23 4th & 1 at RUTG 34, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

81st 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. W

   TEM
2. W

   SYR
3. W

   DEL
4. L

   MICH
5. L

   OSU
6. L

   MSU
7. L

   NU
8. W

   ILL
9. L

   WIS
10. W

    IU
11. L

    PSU
12. L

    MD
13. L

    WAKE

What moved it, 2021

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−0.70
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• TEMW 61-14 vs TEM87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +17
• SYRW 17-7 at SYR59% → 98%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• DELW 45-13 vs DEL90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• MICHL 13-20 at MICH10% → 3%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• OSUL 13-52 vs OSU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• MSUL 13-31 vs MSU44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• NUL 7-21 at NU65% → 1%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −1
• ILLW 20-14 at ILL55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• WISL 3-52 vs WIS19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• IUW 38-3 at IU35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +61, Clock +2
• PSUL 0-28 at PSU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• MDL 16-40 vs MD54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• WAKEL 10-38 vs WAKE15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, 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.