Arizona State

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+0.2487th
  Defense+0.0574th
• 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.
  Offense48.5%93rd
  Defense42.1%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2229th
  Defense+1.2750th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2291st
  Defense−0.0385th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2880th
  Defense+0.1550th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.0%89th
  Defense47.9%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.9%92nd
  Defense29.9%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3286th
  Defense2.9358th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%74th
  Defense19.4%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.7%94th
  Defense16.2%50th

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 Arizona State 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
   WYO
2. W
   MSST
3. W
   TXST
4. L
   TTU
5. W
   KU
6. W
   UTAH
7. L
   CIN
8. W
   OKST
9. W
   UCF
10. W
    KSU
11. W
    BYU
12. W
    ARIZ
13. W
    ISU
14. L
    TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona State.

Players, 2024

1. Sam LeavittQB391 plays · +0.352 pts/play · 4th of 232 QBs
   2.58WAR1.85 to 3.30
2. Cam SkatteboRB282 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 2nd of 373 RBs
   1.08WAR0.84 to 1.29
3. Jordyn TysonWR70 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 32nd of 452 WRs
   0.22WAR0.02 to 0.39
4. Kyson BrownRB69 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 205th of 373 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
5. Jeff SimsQB38 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 210th of 232 QBs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
6. DeCarlos BrooksRB22 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 284th of 373 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
7. Chamon MetayerTE33 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 89th of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.04 to 0.12
8. Melquan StovallWR23 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 296th of 452 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.08

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 Arizona State'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.
  75775730th of 131Roster talent: 757, 30th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717768th of 131Recruiting: 177, 68th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%36th of 130Returning production: 62%, 36th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.4+9.435th of 131SP+ rating: +9.4, 35th 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 Arizona State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.13 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. at TXSTQ4 6:35 4th & 2 at TXST 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
2. vs UCFQ4 0:05 4th & 9 at UCF 22, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
3. vs UCFQ4 0:05 4th & 9 at UCF 22, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
4. at CINQ4 6:01 4th & 2 at CIN 30, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at TXSTQ3 6:28 4th & 6 at TXST 34, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs TEXQ2 1:58 4th & 9 at ASU 21, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at TTUQ4 4:17 4th & 9 at TTU 32, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs TEXQ4 0:57 4th & 5 at ASU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

2nd of 134 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Arizona State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   WYO
2. W

   MSST
3. W

   TXST
4. L

   TTU
5. W

   KU
6. W

   UTAH
7. L

   CIN
8. W

   OKST
9. W

   UCF
10. W

    KSU
11. W

    BYU
12. W

    ARIZ
13. W

    ISU
14. L

    TEX

What moved it, 2024

Every game starts at Arizona State'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+2.92
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.22
• Timeouts−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.25

Game by game

• WYOW 48-7 vs WYO73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29
• MSSTW 30-23 vs MSST71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −4
• TXSTW 31-28 at TXST51% → 75%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• TTUL 22-30 at TTU35% → 2%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +2
• KUW 35-31 vs KU56% → 80%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• UTAHW 27-19 vs UTAH39% → 97%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• CINL 14-24 at CIN39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +2
• OKSTW 42-21 at OKST61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• UCFW 35-31 vs UCF59% → 91%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• KSUW 24-14 at KSU33% → 98%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
• BYUW 28-23 vs BYU59% → 88%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• ARIZW 49-7 at ARIZ70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• ISUW 45-19 vs ISU46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +1
• TEXL 31-39 vs TEX17% → 13%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −13

Points of win probability, from Arizona State's side.

Closest call

ASU 38-34 USC (2014) - Arizona State dropped to a 5.2% win probability before pulling it out.