California

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+0.278th
• 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.
  Offense46.5%78th
  Defense47.6%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3189th
  Defense+1.2435th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1361st
  Defense+0.0954th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3580th
  Defense+0.434th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%70th
  Defense48.6%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.
  Offense38.4%84th
  Defense45.3%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7639th
  Defense2.9541st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%54th
  Defense17.5%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%45th
  Defense1.5%19th

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 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. W
   NU
2. W
   SAC
3. L
   ARIZ
4. W
   COLO
5. W
   WSU
6. L
   WASH
7. L
   UCLA
8. L
   ORE
9. W
   ORST
10. L
    USC
11. L
    STAN
12. L
    BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for California.

Players, 2014

1. Jared GoffQB467 plays · +0.349 pts/play · 2nd of 199 QBs
   3.05WAR2.26 to 3.69
2. Daniel LascoRB214 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 43rd of 350 RBs
   0.38WAR0.21 to 0.54
3. Bryce TreggsWR66 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 49th of 469 WRs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.33
4. Chris HarperWR59 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 96th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.24
5. Kenny LawlerWR63 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 131st of 469 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.25
6. Trevor DavisWR28 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 200th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Darius PoweWR21 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 265th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Khalfani MuhammadRB41 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 246th of 350 RBs
   0.07WAR0.03 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 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

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 California'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 0.12 of the 0.19 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 BYUQ4 6:54 4th & 1 at CAL 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. at NUQ2 11:15 4th & 2 at NU 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs UCLAQ3 8:37 4th & 2 at CAL 47, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs UCLAQ3 6:18 4th & 3 at UCLA 49, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs OREQ4 11:43 4th & 12 at ORE 28, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
6. at USCQ2 5:15 4th & 12 at CAL 31, down 26Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
7. at WSUQ2 3:50 4th & 2 at WSU 47, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs OREQ3 1:05 4th & 1 at CAL 22, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

63rd of 128 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. W

   NU
2. W

   SAC
3. L

   ARIZ
4. W

   COLO
5. W

   WSU
6. L

   WASH
7. L

   UCLA
8. L

   ORE
9. W

   ORST
10. L

    USC
11. L

    STAN
12. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2014

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−0.45
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• NUW 31-24 at NU28% → 95%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• SACW 55-14 vs SAC96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• ARIZL 45-49 at ARIZ16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −21
• COLOW 59-56 vs COLO81% → 79%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts −18
• WSUW 60-59 at WSU36% → 93%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• WASHL 7-31 vs WASH57% → 0%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• UCLAL 34-36 vs UCLA26% → 8%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• OREL 41-59 vs ORE14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• ORSTW 45-31 at ORST39% → 97%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2
• USCL 30-38 at USC18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• STANL 17-38 vs STAN29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• BYUL 35-42 vs BYU62% → 6%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3

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.