Boise State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1878th
  Defense+0.0472nd
• 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.
  Offense48.4%88th
  Defense41.4%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2043rd
  Defense+1.1277th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0434th
  Defense−0.0180th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3488th
  Defense+0.0965th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.5%88th
  Defense49.0%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.7%85th
  Defense26.5%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7833rd
  Defense2.7274th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%41st
  Defense21.8%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%82nd
  Defense16.3%53rd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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. W
   TROY
2. W
   CONN
3. L
   OKST
4. W
   WYO
5. L
   SDSU
6. W
   NEV
7. W
   CSU
8. W
   AF
9. W
   BYU
10. W
    FRES
11. W
    UNM
12. W
    USU
13. L
    FRES

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

Players, 2018

1. Brett RypienQB432 plays · +0.271 pts/play · 14th of 225 QBs
   2.19WAR1.53 to 2.89
2. Alexander MattisonRB275 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 6th of 351 RBs
   0.92WAR0.72 to 1.09
3. A.J. RichardsonWR62 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 26th of 434 WRs
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.32
4. CT ThomasWR46 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 144th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
5. Sean ModsterWR86 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.25
6. Haden HoggarthPK14 plays · +0.274 pts/play · 88th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
7. John HightowerWR39 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 263rd of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
8. Quinn SkillinP35 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 60th of 91 punters
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10

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

What it had and what it did, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54354365th of 130Roster talent: 543, 65th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117162nd of 130Recruiting: 171, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%86th of 129Returning production: 53%, 86th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.2+12.228th of 130SP+ rating: +12.2, 28th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.27 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 FRESQ4 5:08 4th & 1 at BOIS 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−7.6 pts
2. vs USUQ3 1:18 4th & 1 at BOIS 42, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs FRESQ4 3:15 4th & 9 at FRES 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. vs FRESQ4 7:09 4th & 4 at FRES 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs SDSUQ4 15:00 4th & 6 at SDSU 41, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at NEVQ4 0:13 4th & 7 at NEV 28, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
7. at AFQ3 8:22 4th & 2 at AF 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. vs FRESQ3 3:03 4th & 2 at BOIS 36, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

56th of 130 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. W

   TROY
2. W

   CONN
3. L

   OKST
4. W

   WYO
5. L

   SDSU
6. W

   NEV
7. W

   CSU
8. W

   AF
9. W

   BYU
10. W

    FRES
11. W

    UNM
12. W

    USU
13. L

    FRES

What moved it, 2018

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+0.84
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.91

Game by game

• TROYW 56-20 at TROY77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• CONNW 62-7 vs CONN98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• OKSTL 21-44 at OKST55% → 1%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
• WYOW 34-14 at WYO87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20
• SDSUL 13-19 vs SDSU84% → 5%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• NEVW 31-27 at NEV82% → 87%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• CSUW 56-28 vs CSU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• AFW 48-38 at AF77% → 97%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• BYUW 21-16 vs BYU80% → 71%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −9: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position −6
• FRESW 24-17 vs FRES43% → 98%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +45
• UNMW 45-14 at UNM92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +12
• USUW 33-24 vs USU60% → 97%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• FRESL 16-19 vs FRES54% → 12%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −19

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.