UMass’ third-down conversion rate with T.Y. Harding and without T.Y. Harding
, ,
Against what the season’s ratings expected, UMass was 1.8 percentage points under with T.Y. Harding and 4.1 percentage points under without T.Y. Harding over its last 25 games, 9 games against 11. The plain averages are 36.3% and 30.2%, a difference of 6.1%. All 5 opponents outside the major colleges were with T.Y. Harding. All 3 of Don Brown’s games were with T.Y. Harding. Both of Shane Montgomery’s games were with T.Y. Harding.
T.Y. Harding, receiver: 493 receiving yards, 43 receptions and 4 receiving touchdowns in 12 of those 25 games.
third-down conversion rate a game over expected
A +2.3% difference in third-down conversion rate over expected with T.Y. Harding vs without T.Y. Harding is about what you’d expect.
A +6.1% difference in third-down conversion rate with T.Y. Harding vs without T.Y. Harding is about what you’d expect.
The games
| Side | Date | Game | Result | 3rd downs | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2024 | vsWWagner | W | 62.5% | — | |
| Nov 2, 2024 | @ Mississippi State | L | 52.9% | 38.7% | |
| Nov 16, 2024 | vs Liberty | L | 42.9% | 40.1% | |
| Nov 23, 2024 | @ Georgia | L | 27.3% | 31.9% | |
| Nov 30, 2024 | vs UConn | L | 28.6% | 34.3% | |
| Aug 30, 2025 | vs Temple | L | 27.3% | 32.8% | |
| Sep 6, 2025 | vsBBryant | L | 46.7% | — | |
| Sep 13, 2025 | @ Iowa | L | 0.0% | 27.5% | |
| Sep 27, 2025 | @ Missouri | L | 25.0% | 26.6% | |
| Oct 4, 2025 | vs Western Michigan | L | 33.3% | 30.0% | |
| Oct 11, 2025 | @ Kent State | L | 30.0% | 40.4% | |
| Oct 18, 2025 | vs Buffalo | L | 29.4% | 32.8% | |
| Oct 25, 2025 | @ Central Michigan | L | 23.5% | 39.2% | |
| Nov 4, 2025 | @ Akron | L | 16.7% | 34.5% | |
| Nov 12, 2025 | vs Northern Illinois | L | 40.0% | 39.2% | |
| Nov 18, 2025 | @ Ohio | L | 40.0% | 29.1% | |
| Nov 25, 2025 | vs Bowling Green | L | 46.2% | 31.7% | |
| Sep 3, 2026 | @ Rutgers | W | 36.4% | 36.7% | |
| Sep 12, 2026 | vsSSacred Heart | W | 33.3% | — | |
| Sep 19, 2026 | vsSStonehill | W | 33.3% | — | |
| Sep 26, 2026 | @SSacramento State | W | 30.0% | — | |
| Oct 3, 2026 | vs Eastern Michigan | L | 60.0% | 35.0% | |
| Oct 10, 2026 | vs Miami (OH) | L | 26.7% | 40.9% | |
| Oct 17, 2026 | @Buffalo | L | 33.3% | 33.9% | |
| Oct 23, 2026 | @UConn | L | 14.3% | 39.6% |
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 shuffle keeps the season’s shape: the games are cut in two where one date leaves the least variance, each game is read against its stretch, and the sides are shuffled only inside each stretch.
- Wagner, Bryant, Sacred Heart, Stonehill, Sacramento State 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.