Arizona State

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+0.0424th
  Defense+0.0468th
• 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.
  Offense40.2%27th
  Defense40.8%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2239th
  Defense+1.2260th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0233rd
  Defense+0.0268th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1650th
  Defense+0.0970th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%32nd
  Defense46.6%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%36th
  Defense28.3%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8640th
  Defense2.7274th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%36th
  Defense21.4%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%27th
  Defense18.8%89th

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 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
   NAU
2. L
   MSST
3. W
   TXST
4. W
   BAY
5. W
   TCU
6. L
   UTAH
7. W
   TTU
8. L
   HOU
9. W
   ISU
10. W
    WVU
11. W
    COLO
12. L
    ARIZ
13. L
    DUKE

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

Players, 2025

1. Sam LeavittQB259 plays · +0.286 pts/play · 50th of 231 QBs
   1.38WAR0.94 to 1.81
2. Jeff SimsQB286 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 83rd of 231 QBs
   1.04WAR0.41 to 1.59
3. Raleek BrownRB215 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 8th of 365 RBs
   0.46WAR0.32 to 0.58
4. Jordyn TysonWR79 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 29th of 451 WRs
   0.28WAR0.10 to 0.45
5. Jesus GomezPK28 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 14th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.19
6. Chamon MetayerTE47 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 36th of 213 TEs
   0.09WAR−0.01 to 0.20
7. Kanye UdohRB51 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 246th of 365 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
8. Derek EusebioWR38 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 242nd of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.15

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73973933rd of 134Roster talent: 739, 33rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18118167th of 134Recruiting: 181, 67th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%19th of 132Returning production: 65%, 19th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.9+3.959th of 134SP+ rating: +3.9, 59th 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 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 0.19 of the 0.22 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 MSSTQ4 1:38 4th & 1 at MSST 1, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−15.1 pts
2. vs TTUQ4 7:21 4th & 2 at TTU 44, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at UTAHQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at ASU 31, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
4. at UTAHQ4 3:25 4th & 3 at UTAH 3, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. at DUKEQ4 5:59 4th & 6 at DUKE 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs HOUQ3 13:24 4th & 2 at ASU 18, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs HOUQ2 4:19 4th & 2 at ASU 27, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at ISUQ3 10:08 4th & 2 at ASU 11, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

55th of 136 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

   NAU
2. L

   MSST
3. W

   TXST
4. W

   BAY
5. W

   TCU
6. L

   UTAH
7. W

   TTU
8. L

   HOU
9. W

   ISU
10. W

    WVU
11. W

    COLO
12. L

    ARIZ
13. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2025

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+0.30
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.50
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04

Game by game

• NAUW 38-19 vs NAU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• MSSTL 20-24 at MSST65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −42, Clock −1
• TXSTW 34-15 vs TXST91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts −1
• BAYW 27-24 at BAY39% → 93%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +51, Clock +4
• TCUW 27-24 vs TCU57% → 97%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• UTAHL 10-42 at UTAH31% → 57%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +26: Timeouts +43, Scoreboard −29
• TTUW 26-22 vs TTU29% → 81%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position −5
• HOUL 16-24 vs HOU69% → 3%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −59, Clock −4
• ISUW 24-19 at ISU29% → 96%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• WVUW 25-23 vs WVU79% → 95%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• COLOW 42-17 at COLO73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +33
• ARIZL 7-23 vs ARIZ46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −5
• DUKEL 39-42 at DUKE45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2

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.