Rutgers

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1453rd
  Defense+0.1823rd
• 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.
  Offense42.9%50th
  Defense43.3%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2127th
  Defense+1.3326th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0950th
  Defense+0.218th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2060th
  Defense+0.1844th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.7%33rd
  Defense49.4%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%73rd
  Defense31.0%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9235th
  Defense3.1828th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%48th
  Defense17.4%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%75th
  Defense14.5%29th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   HOW
2. W
   AKR
3. W
   VT
4. W
   WASH
5. L
   NEB
6. L
   WIS
7. L
   UCLA
8. L
   USC
9. W
   MINN
10. W
    MD
11. L
    ILL
12. W
    MSU
13. L
    KSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rutgers.

Players, 2024

1. Athan KaliakmanisQB375 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 44th of 232 QBs
   1.73WAR1.23 to 2.31
2. Kyle MonangaiRB208 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 11th of 373 RBs
   0.59WAR0.44 to 0.74
3. Ian StrongWR38 plays · +0.343 pts/play · 22nd of 452 WRs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.34
4. Dymere MillerWR46 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 38th of 452 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
5. Antwan RaymondRB62 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 206th of 373 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Jai PatelPK14 plays · +0.333 pts/play · 47th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Sam Brown VRB21 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 292nd of 373 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06
8. Ja'shon BenjaminRB19 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 295th of 373 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66466459th of 131Roster talent: 664, 59th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20120137th of 131Recruiting: 201, 37th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%69th of 130Returning production: 43%, 69th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.4+6.441st of 131SP+ rating: +6.4, 41st of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.04 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 WASHQ3 7:23 4th & 1 at WASH 49, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. at USCQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at USC 2, down 19Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs WASHQ4 4:43 4th & 1 at RUTG 29, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at VTQ3 3:54 4th & 6 at VT 35, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs WASHQ2 5:52 4th & 1 at RUTG 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs MINNQ4 2:45 4th & 4 at MINN 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs WISQ1 5:04 4th & 1 at RUTG 31, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at USCQ4 3:04 4th & 19 at USC 32, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

53rd of 134 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

   HOW
2. W

   AKR
3. W

   VT
4. W

   WASH
5. L

   NEB
6. L

   WIS
7. L

   UCLA
8. L

   USC
9. W

   MINN
10. W

    MD
11. L

    ILL
12. W

    MSU
13. L

    KSU

What moved it, 2024

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+0.08
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• HOWW 44-7 vs HOW98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• AKRW 49-17 vs AKR95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• VTW 26-23 at VT38% → 96%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• WASHW 21-18 vs WASH59% → 85%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• NEBL 7-14 at NEB30% → 10%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position −3
• WISL 7-42 vs WIS52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −53
• UCLAL 32-35 vs UCLA64% → 6%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• USCL 20-42 at USC18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −22
• MINNW 26-19 vs MINN32% → 97%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +3
• MDW 31-17 at MD38% → 98%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +61, Timeouts −2
• ILLL 31-38 vs ILL57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• MSUW 41-14 at MSU47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• KSUL 41-44 at KSU32% → 4%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2

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.