Rutgers

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.054th
  Defense+0.0858th
• 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.
  Offense36.8%8th
  Defense42.0%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1311th
  Defense+1.1677th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.087th
  Defense+0.0943rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.037th
  Defense+0.1375th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%32nd
  Defense49.5%27th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.0%2nd
  Defense26.6%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9426th
  Defense2.8383rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%54th
  Defense19.5%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%24th
  Defense17.7%72nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   BC
2. W
   WAG
3. W
   TEM
4. L
   IOWA
5. L
   OSU
6. L
   NEB
7. W
   IU
8. L
   MINN
9. L
   MICH
10. L
    MSU
11. L
    PSU
12. L
    MD

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rutgers.

Players, 2022

1. Kyle MonangaiRB79 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 161st of 384 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.26
2. Adam KorsakP55 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 2nd of 102 punters
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.27
3. Sam Brown VRB58 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 211th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.19
4. Aron CruickshankWR47 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 203rd of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
5. Sean RyanWR23 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 227th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Evan SimonQB83 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 201st of 234 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.10 to 0.28
7. Noah VedralQB49 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 205th of 234 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.17
8. Johnny LanganTE42 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 72nd of 214 TEs
   0.07WAR0.02 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63163155th of 129Roster talent: 631, 55th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18718753rd of 129Recruiting: 187, 53rd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%52nd of 128Returning production: 65%, 52nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.1−9.194th of 129SP+ rating: −9.1, 94th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.06 of the 0.12 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 IUQ4 12:16 4th & 5 at IU 38, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at BCQ3 5:16 4th & 2 at RUTG 40, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at BCQ3 5:16 4th & 2 at RUTG 40, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at MSUQ4 0:47 4th & 28 at MSU 31, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
5. vs NEBQ2 12:02 4th & 3 at RUTG 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs NEBQ2 0:00 4th & 18 at NEB 39, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs IUQ2 6:58 4th & 4 at RUTG 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at BCQ2 2:15 4th & 7 at BC 42, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

69th of 131 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

   BC
2. W

   WAG
3. W

   TEM
4. L

   IOWA
5. L

   OSU
6. L

   NEB
7. W

   IU
8. L

   MINN
9. L

   MICH
10. L

    MSU
11. L

    PSU
12. L

    MD

What moved it, 2022

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−0.22
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.79

Game by game

• BCW 22-21 at BC27% → 85%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +45, Clock +4
• WAGW 66-7 vs WAG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• TEMW 16-14 at TEM89% → 95%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• IOWAL 10-27 vs IOWA29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• OSUL 10-49 at OSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• NEBL 13-14 vs NEB44% → 7%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• IUW 24-17 vs IU62% → 98%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36
• MINNL 0-31 at MINN17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• MICHL 17-52 vs MICH5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• MSUL 21-27 at MSU25% → 6%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +3
• PSUL 10-55 vs PSU10% → 90%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −1
• MDL 0-37 at MD17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19

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.