Boise State

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1446th
  Defense+0.0683rd
• 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.
  Offense43.0%47th
  Defense38.5%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2023rd
  Defense+1.2747th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0215th
  Defense+0.0472nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2560th
  Defense+0.1473rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%39th
  Defense44.7%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.1%74th
  Defense26.5%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7512th
  Defense2.9558th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%19th
  Defense19.3%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%60th
  Defense16.6%50th

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, 2021

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

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

Players, 2021

1. Hank BachmeierQB409 plays · +0.301 pts/play · 23rd of 219 QBs
   2.31WAR1.66 to 3.00
2. George HolaniRB108 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 147th of 387 RBs
   0.31WAR0.22 to 0.39
3. Khalil ShakirWR93 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 22nd of 474 WRs
   0.30WAR0.21 to 0.39
4. Cyrus Habibi-LikioRB105 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 168th of 387 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.34
5. Andrew Van BurenRB70 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 213th of 387 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.27
6. Joel VelazquezPK48 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 5th of 128 kickers
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
7. Jonah DalmasPK20 plays · +0.342 pts/play · 14th of 128 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
8. Octavius EvansWR38 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 195th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.08 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 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55855870th of 130Roster talent: 558, 70th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17617662nd of 130Recruiting: 176, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  96%96%13th of 128Returning production: 96%, 13th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.4+9.441st of 130SP+ rating: +9.4, 41st 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, 2021

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.17 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 UCFQ4 14:55 4th & 12 at BOIS 23, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.4 pts
2. at BYUQ2 0:01 4th & 3 at BYU 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at SDSUQ2 3:04 4th & 3 at midfield, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at BYUQ4 3:27 4th & 4 at BYU 4, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at USUQ3 12:27 4th & 3 at USU 43, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at FRESQ2 0:41 4th & 1 at FRES 14, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at UCFQ2 5:06 4th & 3 at UCF 14, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at BYUQ2 9:48 4th & 4 at BYU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

78th 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. L

   UCF
2. W

   UTEP
3. L

   OKST
4. W

   USU
5. L

   NEV
6. W

   BYU
7. L

   AF
8. W

   CSU
9. W

   FRES
10. W

    WYO
11. W

    UNM
12. L

    SDSU

What moved it, 2021

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+1.02
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• UCFL 31-36 at UCF36% → 11%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• UTEPW 54-13 vs UTEP94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• OKSTL 20-21 vs OKST61% → 96%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +1
• USUW 27-3 at USU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• NEVL 31-41 vs NEV58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• BYUW 26-17 at BYU38% → 96%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• AFL 17-24 vs AF61% → 16%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• CSUW 28-19 at CSU59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• FRESW 40-14 at FRES37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +61, Clock +2
• WYOW 23-13 vs WYO82% → 98%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +23
• UNMW 37-0 vs UNM95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• SDSUL 16-27 at SDSU59% → 3%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −42, 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.