Boise State

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2583rd
  Defense+0.0781st
• 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.
  Offense46.3%77th
  Defense35.9%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2882nd
  Defense+1.355th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1879th
  Defense+0.0858th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3582nd
  Defense+0.0792nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%79th
  Defense41.7%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.3%71st
  Defense25.8%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9755th
  Defense2.6872nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%46th
  Defense22.5%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%81st
  Defense2.5%76th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Boise 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. L
   MISS
2. W
   CSU
3. W
   CONN
4. W
   UL
5. L
   AF
6. W
   NEV
7. W
   FRES
8. W
   BYU
9. W
   UNM
10. W
    SDSU
11. W
    WYO
12. W
    USU
13. W
    FRES
14. W
    ARIZ

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

Players, 2014

1. Grant HedrickQB495 plays · +0.285 pts/play · 5th of 199 QBs
   2.64WAR1.84 to 3.38
2. Jay AjayiRB336 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 4th of 350 RBs
   0.76WAR0.52 to 1.00
3. Thomas SperbeckWR63 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 72nd of 469 WRs
   0.20WAR0.10 to 0.31
4. Shane Williams-RhodesWR81 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 115th of 469 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.25
5. Sean WaleP48 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 21st of 94 punters
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.23
6. Dan GoodalePK17 plays · +0.328 pts/play · 60th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. Jeremy McNicholsRB28 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 246th of 350 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Ryan FinleyQB12 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 190th of 199 QBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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 Boise 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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Boise State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.14 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 MISSQ4 0:54 4th & 28 at BOIS 32, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting2.6 pts
2. at CONNQ4 11:16 4th & 3 at BOIS 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
3. vs ARIZQ4 4:36 4th & 1 at BOIS 31, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
4. vs MISSQ2 1:12 4th & 1 at BOIS 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
5. at AFQ2 8:19 4th & 4 at AF 46, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
6. vs BYUQ3 9:43 4th & 4 at BYU 43, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs SDSUQ3 8:08 4th & 4 at BOIS 32, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.7 pts
8. vs USUQ3 6:49 4th & 2 at USU 42, up 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

15th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   MISS
2. W

   CSU
3. W

   CONN
4. W

   UL
5. L

   AF
6. W

   NEV
7. W

   FRES
8. W

   BYU
9. W

   UNM
10. W

    SDSU
11. W

    WYO
12. W

    USU
13. W

    FRES
14. W

    ARIZ

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Boise 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+3.25
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.11
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.95

Game by game

• MISSL 13-35 vs MISS23% → 89%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• CSUW 37-24 vs CSU71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 38-21 at CONN85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• ULW 34-9 vs UL88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts −1
• AFL 14-28 at AF85% → 1%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts −2
• NEVW 51-46 at NEV56% → 93%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• FRESW 37-27 vs FRES88% → 96%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• BYUW 55-30 vs BYU68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33
• UNMW 60-49 at UNM84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• SDSUW 38-29 vs SDSU84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• WYOW 63-14 at WYO88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• USUW 50-19 vs USU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +25
• FRESW 28-14 vs FRES89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• ARIZW 38-30 vs ARIZ39% → 94%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3

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

Closest call

BOIS 59-52 CSU (2017) - Boise State dropped to a 2.5% win probability before pulling it out.