Akron’s third-down conversion rate with Brayden Roggow and without Brayden Roggow
, ,
Against what the season’s ratings expected, Akron was 1.3 percentage points under with Brayden Roggow and 0.3 percentage points under without Brayden Roggow over its last 25 games, 6 games against 17. The plain averages are 39.2% and 35.7%, a difference of 3.5%. Expected was 5.6 percentage points higher with Brayden Roggow than without Brayden Roggow. All 6 night games were without Brayden Roggow. Both opponents outside the major colleges were without Brayden Roggow. All 3 games after a bye were without Brayden Roggow.
Brayden Roggow, quarterback: 1,434 passing yards, 208 pass attempts and 123 completions in 11 of those 25 games.
third-down conversion rate a game over expected
A −1.0% difference in third-down conversion rate over expected with Brayden Roggow vs without Brayden Roggow is about what you’d expect.
A +3.5% difference in third-down conversion rate with Brayden Roggow vs without Brayden Roggow is about what you’d expect.
The games
| Side | Date | Game | Result | 3rd downs | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2024 | vs Eastern Michigan | W | 40.0% | 38.8% | |
| Nov 2, 2024 | vs Buffalo | L | 42.9% | 37.2% | |
| Nov 13, 2024 | @ Northern Illinois | L | 33.3% | 31.0% | |
| Nov 19, 2024 | @ Kent State | W | 53.3% | 41.8% | |
| Nov 26, 2024 | vs Toledo | W | 46.2% | 37.8% | |
| Aug 28, 2025 | vs Wyoming | L | 20.0% | 29.0% | |
| Sep 6, 2025 | @ Nebraska | L | 7.1% | 31.8% | |
| Sep 13, 2025 | @ UAB | L | 37.5% | 32.8% | |
| Sep 20, 2025 | vs Duquesne | W | 45.5% | — | |
| Sep 27, 2025 | @Toledo | L | 13.3% | 29.8% | |
| Oct 4, 2025 | vs Central Michigan | W | 60.0% | 34.3% | |
| Oct 11, 2025 | vs Miami (OH) | L | 42.9% | 37.1% | |
| Oct 18, 2025 | @ Ball State | L | 16.7% | 36.3% | |
| Oct 25, 2025 | @Buffalo | W | 14.3% | 32.2% | |
| Nov 4, 2025 | vs UMass | W | 54.5% | 38.0% | |
| Nov 11, 2025 | vsKent State | L | 36.8% | 38.8% | |
| Nov 18, 2025 | @ Bowling Green | W | 23.1% | 32.0% | |
| Sep 3, 2026 | @ Wake Forest | L | 46.2% | 34.5% | |
| Sep 12, 2026 | vsRRobert Morris | W | 45.5% | — | |
| Sep 19, 2026 | @ Minnesota | L | 23.1% | 32.9% | |
| Sep 26, 2026 | vs UNLV | L | 38.5% | 39.8% | |
| Oct 3, 2026 | @Central Michigan | L | 42.9% | 45.8% | |
| Oct 10, 2026 | vsEastern Michigan | L | 41.7% | 43.9% | |
| Oct 17, 2026 | @Miami (OH) | L | 35.3% | 42.8% | |
| Oct 24, 2026 | @Kent State | L | 53.8% | 37.4% |
Method
- Expected is an offense and a defense a team, fit over every game of its season between two teams in the table with the game being read left out, plus 0.6% in 2024, plus 0.7% in 2025, plus 1.4% in 2026 for the home team (the edge the fit finds once strength is in), nothing at a neutral site.
- Each expected number is then fit to the season’s games: a game bears out about 50% in 2024, 56% in 2025, 40% in 2026 of the difference the model predicts.
- The two sides are the games before and after one date, so the shuffle moves any game between them.
- Duquesne, Robert Morris have no other game in the table, so those games have no expected number and sit out the second figure.
- Who played is read from the schools’ box scores’ participation lists for 20 of these 25 games; in the other 5 a player is counted as in them when the box score has a stat for him.
- With him means he was the team’s quarterback that game, at least half of its pass attempts; a game he left early or came into late reads as without him.