California

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.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense+0.0948th
• 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.
  Offense38.5%12th
  Defense37.1%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3174th
  Defense+1.419th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.087th
  Defense+0.229th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1226th
  Defense+0.0479th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.1%15th
  Defense43.7%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.9%31st
  Defense24.2%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.404th
  Defense3.1427th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.0%9th
  Defense14.4%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%16th
  Defense14.2%29th

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 California 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
   UCLA
2. W
   SYR
3. W
   WAG
4. L
   CLEM
5. L
   UNLV
6. W
   VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for California.

Players, 2026

1. Jaron-Keawe SagapoluteleQB133 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 97th of 192 QBs
   0.21WAR0.00 to 0.38
2. Adam MohammedRB73 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 27th of 320 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.19
3. Jackson BrousseauQB63 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 123rd of 192 QBs
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.22
4. Chase HendricksWR35 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 22nd of 364 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Ashten EmoryRB55 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 65th of 320 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Ian StrongWR32 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 42nd of 364 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Mason MiniTE20 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 21st of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08
8. Jordan KingWR10 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 215th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05

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 California'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.
  75275233rd of 138Roster talent: 752, 33rd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18418469th of 138Recruiting: 184, 69th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%43rd of 136Returning production: 58%, 43rd 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.
  −2.5−2.587th of 138SP+ rating so far: −2.5, 87th 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 California'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 0.08 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 VTQ3 10:27 4th & 1 at VT 47, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. vs VTQ3 4:48 4th & 7 at CAL 34, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
3. at SYRQ4 6:18 4th & 20 at SYR 41, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at SYRQ2 1:41 4th & 11 at SYR 37, down 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs CLEMQ4 5:30 4th & 16 at CLEM 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs VTQ3 0:28 4th & 4 at VT 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at SYRQ2 11:16 4th & 4 at SYR 28, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs VTQ2 1:06 4th & 9 at VT 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

69th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   UCLA
2. W

   SYR
3. W

   WAG
4. L

   CLEM
5. L

   UNLV
6. W

   VT

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at California'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−1.09
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• UCLAL 24-45 vs UCLA43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• SYRW 21-18 at SYR40% → 94%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• WAGW 49-7 vs WAG100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• CLEML 10-24 vs CLEM43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• UNLVL 31-39 at UNLV48% → 2%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• VTW 25-20 vs VT25% → 2%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from California's side.

Closest call

VT 20-25 CAL (2026) - California dropped to a 1.5% win probability before pulling it out.