California

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2391st
  Defense+0.1523rd
• 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.
  Offense51.4%98th
  Defense47.0%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2054th
  Defense+1.1374th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0335th
  Defense+0.1417th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3794th
  Defense+0.1839th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.4%91st
  Defense52.5%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense46.5%99th
  Defense33.6%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0170th
  Defense3.2210th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%48th
  Defense15.2%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.4%24th
  Defense3.2%96th

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, 2015

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
   GRAM
2. W
   SDSU
3. W
   TEX
4. W
   WASH
5. W
   WSU
6. L
   UTAH
7. L
   UCLA
8. L
   USC
9. L
   ORE
10. W
    ORST
11. L
    STAN
12. W
    ASU
13. W
    AF

Bars above the line: better than expected for California.

Players, 2015

1. Jared GoffQB484 plays · +0.358 pts/play · 4th of 205 QBs
   3.24WAR2.40 to 3.92
2. Bryce TreggsWR62 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 65th of 411 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
3. Darius PoweWR55 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 81st of 411 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.27
4. Vic EnwereRB88 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 137th of 333 RBs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
5. Trevor DavisWR47 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 104th of 411 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
6. Tre WatsonRB71 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 148th of 333 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
7. Kenny LawlerWR64 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 138th of 411 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.25
8. Matt AndersonPK17 plays · +0.416 pts/play · 45th of 115 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62662640th of 128Roster talent: 626, 40th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18718743rd of 128Recruiting: 187, 43rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%8th of 127Returning production: 91%, 8th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.1+12.128th of 128SP+ rating: +12.1, 28th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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 STANQ4 8:59 4th & 15 at STAN 22, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
2. at UCLAQ2 5:51 4th & 10 at CAL 25, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
3. at UTAHQ3 4:07 4th & 1 at CAL 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at TEXQ4 13:24 4th & 2 at CAL 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at UCLAQ3 10:13 4th & 1 at CAL 29, down 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs ASUQ2 1:05 4th & 2 at midfield, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs ASUQ2 3:31 4th & 1 at CAL 34, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at OREQ2 3:18 4th & 1 at CAL 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

57th 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

   GRAM
2. W

   SDSU
3. W

   TEX
4. W

   WASH
5. W

   WSU
6. L

   UTAH
7. L

   UCLA
8. L

   USC
9. L

   ORE
10. W

    ORST
11. L

    STAN
12. W

    ASU
13. W

    AF

What moved it, 2015

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+0.30
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.39

Game by game

• GRAMW 73-14 vs GRAM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SDSUW 35-7 vs SDSU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24
• TEXW 45-44 at TEX62% → 78%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +32, Clock +4
• WASHW 30-24 at WASH61% → 96%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• WSUW 34-28 vs WSU85% → 90%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• UTAHL 24-30 at UTAH35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −3
• UCLAL 24-40 at UCLA34% → 2%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• USCL 21-27 vs USC37% → 7%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1
• OREL 28-44 at ORE34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• ORSTW 54-24 vs ORST91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• STANL 22-35 at STAN21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• ASUW 48-46 vs ASU62% → 95%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• AFW 55-36 at AF74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1

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.