Percentile among the 138 FBS teams on each measure this season, offence and defence, both teams. Raw values, plays behind them and ranks are in the tables below.
What actually happens around a number like this
Each bar is how often a college game lands on that margin, from 7,877 FBS games 2015–2025, centred on our card line. The spread misses by 12.3 points on average (37% within a touchdown). IU wins about 97% of the time at a number like ours.
UNT
Games
4
Plays per game
72.8
Drives per game
11.2
SP+
-5.7 (91st, offence 47th, defence 120th)
Returning production
3% (pass 2%, rush 3%, receiving 2%)
IU
Games
4
Plays per game
61.8
Drives per game
10.5
SP+
26.9 (4th, offence 5th, defence 7th)
Returning production
17% (pass 2%, rush 25%, receiving 24%)
What each side chooses to do
Offence
UNT
IU
pass rate, all downs
51%43rd
38%128th
pass rate, passing downs
60%87th
55%114th
no-huddle share
62%68th
3%135th
pass rate, standard downs
48%23rd
31%126th
pass rate, 1st down
45%52nd
30%126th
pass rate, red zone
46%29th
17%133rd
seconds per play (own drives)
29.656th
33.06th
choices, from CFBD play-by-play; a choice repeats within a season, a result mostly does not Rank 1 = highest rate / fastest among FBS.
UNT offence
UNT offence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.319
291
17 of 138
success rate
0.505
291
20 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.280
291
48 of 138
rush: points added per play
0.188
291
41 of 138
rush: success rate
0.446
291
73 of 138
rush: explosiveness
1.058
291
33 of 138
pass: points added per play
0.467
291
21 of 138
pass: success rate
0.572
291
8 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.461
291
94 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.558
291
20 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.376
291
28 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
3.271
291
46 of 138
rushes stopped at or behind the line
0.165
291
64 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.750
291
69 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
4.419
291
38 of 138
havoc allowed (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.113
291
28 of 138
havoc allowed by the front seven
0.069
291
29 of 138
havoc allowed by the secondary
0.045
291
52 of 138
average starting field position (yards from own goal)
70.100
291
77 of 138
IU offence
IU offence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.421
247
5 of 138
success rate
0.510
247
18 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.382
247
20 of 138
rush: points added per play
0.256
247
22 of 138
rush: success rate
0.474
247
43 of 138
rush: explosiveness
1.022
247
46 of 138
pass: points added per play
0.686
247
2 of 138
pass: success rate
0.573
247
6 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.877
247
10 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.558
247
19 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.379
247
26 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
3.507
247
19 of 138
rushes stopped at or behind the line
0.118
247
13 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.720
247
85 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
5.241
247
7 of 138
havoc allowed (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.109
247
22 of 138
havoc allowed by the front seven
0.081
247
54 of 138
havoc allowed by the secondary
0.028
247
11 of 138
average starting field position (yards from own goal)
66.900
247
121 of 138
UNT defence
UNT defence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.119
254
92 of 138
success rate
0.445
254
113 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.226
254
69 of 138
rush: points added per play
-0.043
254
40 of 138
rush: success rate
0.412
254
77 of 138
rush: explosiveness
0.724
254
19 of 138
pass: points added per play
0.453
254
130 of 138
pass: success rate
0.505
254
131 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.846
254
129 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.481
254
93 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.352
254
122 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
2.483
254
29 of 138
rushes stopped (by this defence) at or behind the line
0.196
254
74 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.704
254
61 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
3.875
254
107 of 138
havoc created (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.150
254
51 of 138
havoc created by the front seven
0.106
254
82 of 138
havoc created by the secondary
0.043
254
25 of 138
opponent average starting field position
65.700
254
3 of 138
IU defence
IU defence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
-0.107
237
17 of 138
success rate
0.300
237
3 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.421
237
129 of 138
rush: points added per play
-0.134
237
21 of 138
rush: success rate
0.264
237
3 of 138
rush: explosiveness
1.164
237
128 of 138
pass: points added per play
-0.035
237
21 of 138
pass: success rate
0.356
237
31 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.598
237
89 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.329
237
2 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.250
237
41 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
2.262
237
12 of 138
rushes stopped (by this defence) at or behind the line
0.236
237
112 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.500
237
7 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
2.857
237
38 of 138
havoc created (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.198
237
115 of 138
havoc created by the front seven
0.169
237
132 of 138
havoc created by the secondary
0.030
237
3 of 138
opponent average starting field position
74.800
237
118 of 138
points added per play: CFBD predicted points added (their EPA); positive helps the offence · success rate: share of plays that gain 50% of needed yards on 1st, 70% on 2nd, 100% on 3rd/4th · explosiveness: average points added on the plays that succeeded - big-play size · havoc: tackles for loss, forced fumbles, interceptions and breakups as a share of plays · rank: 1 = best among FBS teams in the direction that helps that side · fei: bcftoys.com FEI: opponent-adjusted possession efficiency, offence/defence/special teams, with FBS rank - theirs · fplus: bcftoys.com F+: FEI and SP+ combined, in standard deviations above average - theirs