Rutgers

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1876th
  Defense+0.271st
• 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.
  Offense46.8%86th
  Defense47.4%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2030th
  Defense+1.3313th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0641st
  Defense+0.241st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3177th
  Defense+0.376th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%79th
  Defense53.2%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%86th
  Defense33.7%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0360th
  Defense3.1519th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%85th
  Defense19.4%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%43rd
  Defense12.4%8th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   OHIO
2. W
   M-OH
3. W
   NORF
4. L
   IOWA
5. L
   MINN
6. L
   WASH
7. L
   ORE
8. W
   PUR
9. L
   ILL
10. W
    MD
11. L
    OSU
12. L
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rutgers.

Players, 2025

1. Athan KaliakmanisQB363 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 8th of 231 QBs
   2.16WAR1.51 to 2.76
2. KJ DuffWR73 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 6th of 451 WRs
   0.39WAR0.24 to 0.51
3. Antwan RaymondRB206 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 27th of 365 RBs
   0.36WAR0.23 to 0.48
4. Ian StrongWR72 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 18th of 451 WRs
   0.33WAR0.20 to 0.45
5. DT SheffieldWR53 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 123rd of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.03 to 0.26
6. Jakob AndersonP23 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 24th of 100 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
7. Jai PatelPK14 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 81st of 112 kickers
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.10
8. Kenny Fletcher Jr.TE29 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 146th of 213 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.07

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68968953rd of 134Roster talent: 689, 53rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820835th of 134Recruiting: 208, 35th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%12th of 132Returning production: 67%, 12th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.0+1.071st of 134SP+ rating: +1.0, 71st of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.07 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 IOWAQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at RUTG 20, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
2. at WASHQ4 11:46 4th & 10 at WASH 11, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.5 pts
3. at PURQ4 1:06 4th & 2 at PUR 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
4. vs MDQ1 1:09 4th & 2 at RUTG 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
5. at PURQ2 0:37 4th & 2 at PUR 24, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.4 pts
6. at MINNQ4 6:31 4th & 7 at RUTG 31, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
7. at OSUQ2 9:17 4th & 1 at RUTG 33, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
8. at PURQ4 2:00 4th & 2 at PUR 35, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

86th of 136 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

   OHIO
2. W

   M-OH
3. W

   NORF
4. L

   IOWA
5. L

   MINN
6. L

   WASH
7. L

   ORE
8. W

   PUR
9. L

   ILL
10. W

    MD
11. L

    OSU
12. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2025

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−0.89
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Timeouts+0.48
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.19

Game by game

• OHIOW 34-31 vs OHIO85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20
• M-OHW 45-17 vs M-OH89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +13
• NORFW 60-10 vs NORF99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• IOWAL 28-38 vs IOWA48% → 3%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• MINNL 28-31 at MINN44% → 35%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts +46
• WASHL 19-38 at WASH27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts +1
• OREL 10-56 vs ORE13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• PURW 27-24 at PUR50% → 93%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• ILLL 13-35 at ILL21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position −1
• MDW 35-20 vs MD60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• OSUL 9-42 at OSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• PSUL 36-40 vs PSU17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Rutgers's side.

Closest call

RUTG 37-30 MD (2026) - Rutgers dropped to a 0.6% win probability before pulling it out.