Arizona State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0936th
  Defense+0.1044th
• 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.
  Offense44.9%60th
  Defense39.5%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1930th
  Defense+1.3616th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0227th
  Defense+0.0839th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2555th
  Defense+0.1259th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%42nd
  Defense46.8%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.5%82nd
  Defense26.9%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0749th
  Defense3.1130th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%33rd
  Defense14.9%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%35th
  Defense14.7%34th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   MORG
2. L
   TA&M
3. W
   KU
4. L
   BAY
5. W
   HAW

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

Players, 2026

1. Cutter BoleyQB130 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 92nd of 192 QBs
   0.21WAR0.02 to 0.40
2. Reed HarrisWR33 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 8th of 364 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
3. Omarion MillerWR37 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 36th of 364 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.18
4. Kyson BrownRB52 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 115th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
5. Raiden Vines-BrightWR7 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 281st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
6. Jalen MossWR1 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 341st of 364 WRs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00
7. Khamari AndersonTE1 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 159th of 164 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72272245th of 138Roster talent: 722, 45th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20520544th of 138Recruiting: 205, 44th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  16%16%106th of 136Returning production: 16%, 106th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.6+3.659th of 138SP+ rating so far: +3.6, 59th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.04 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. vs HAWQ3 13:30 4th & 1 at ASU 19, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
2. at KUQ4 5:17 4th & 7 at KU 39, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs HAWQ4 10:23 4th & 3 at HAW 47, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at TA&MQ4 11:23 4th & 3 at ASU 45, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at KUQ2 0:42 4th & 18 at KU 41, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs HAWQ2 6:02 4th & 3 at ASU 47, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs MORGQ4 3:59 4th & 13 at MORG 37, up 63Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts
8. at TA&MQ1 12:08 4th & 4 at ASU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

84th of 138 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

   MORG
2. L

   TA&M
3. W

   KU
4. L

   BAY
5. W

   HAW

What moved it, 2026

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−0.10
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.16

Game by game

• MORGW 70-7 vs MORG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TA&ML 20-48 at TA&M11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• KUW 24-17 at KU64% → 94%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• BAYL 19-55 vs BAY57% → 0%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• HAWW 30-12 vs HAW89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16

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.