Boise State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1665th
  Defense+0.1540th
• 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.
  Offense46.4%78th
  Defense36.2%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1310th
  Defense+1.3911th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0133rd
  Defense+0.1332nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3176th
  Defense+0.1755th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.1%82nd
  Defense43.5%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%60th
  Defense23.1%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6827th
  Defense2.9052nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%53rd
  Defense21.9%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%62nd
  Defense16.1%45th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   USU
2. W
   AF
3. L
   BYU
4. W
   CSU
5. W
   HAW
6. W
   WYO
7. L
   SJSU

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

Players, 2020

1. Hank BachmeierQB136 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 81st of 212 QBs
   0.41WAR0.15 to 0.68
2. Andrew Van BurenRB98 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 111th of 338 RBs
   0.28WAR0.21 to 0.35
3. Khalil ShakirWR69 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 49th of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
4. Jack SearsQB29 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 163rd of 212 QBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
5. CT ThomasWR22 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
6. George HolaniRB21 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 271st of 338 RBs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.08
7. Cade FenneganQB21 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 196th of 212 QBs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
8. John BatesTE13 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 60th of 191 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57157167th of 127Roster talent: 571, 67th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717762nd of 127Recruiting: 177, 62nd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%52nd of 127Returning production: 69%, 52nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.7+6.736th of 127SP+ rating: +6.7, 36th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.06 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 BYUQ2 2:26 4th & 3 at BOIS 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at WYOQ2 12:20 4th & 1 at BOIS 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at WYOQ4 14:51 4th & 6 at WYO 41, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at WYOQ4 11:15 4th & 4 at WYO 49, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at AFQ3 11:58 4th & 2 at BOIS 28, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at SJSUQ2 8:36 4th & 12 at SJSU 42, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at WYOQ2 5:37 4th & 7 at WYO 17, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs USUQ3 10:19 4th & 3 at BOIS 29, up 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

75th of 127 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

   USU
2. W

   AF
3. L

   BYU
4. W

   CSU
5. W

   HAW
6. W

   WYO
7. L

   SJSU

What moved it, 2020

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+0.27
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.60

Game by game

• USUW 42-13 vs USU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• AFW 49-30 at AF85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• BYUL 17-51 vs BYU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −42, Clock −1
• CSUW 52-21 vs CSU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• HAWW 40-32 at HAW83% → 95%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• WYOW 17-9 at WYO74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• SJSUL 20-34 at SJSU70% → 1%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −2

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.