California

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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−0.045th
  Defense−0.0797th
• 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.
  Offense40.6%26th
  Defense38.3%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.001st
  Defense+1.0398th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0120th
  Defense+0.0269th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.085th
  Defense−0.1599th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%27th
  Defense43.8%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.2%20th
  Defense28.0%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0264th
  Defense2.8554th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%67th
  Defense16.7%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%17th
  Defense15.4%34th

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, 2018

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for California.

Players, 2018

1. Chase GarbersQB287 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 75th of 225 QBs
   1.13WAR0.68 to 1.60
2. Patrick LairdRB240 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 28th of 351 RBs
   0.65WAR0.46 to 0.83
3. Brandon McIlwainQB154 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 144th of 225 QBs
   0.47WAR0.13 to 0.84
4. Vic Wharton IIIWR56 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 95th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.22
5. Kanawai NoaWR35 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 140th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Steven CouttsP63 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 21st of 91 punters
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.21
7. Greg ThomasPK16 plays · +0.352 pts/play · 51st of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. Maurice WaysWR39 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 265th of 434 WRs
   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

What it had and what it did, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59659645th of 130Roster talent: 596, 45th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19119143rd of 130Recruiting: 191, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  87%87%12th of 129Returning production: 87%, 12th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.9+3.955th of 130SP+ rating: +3.9, 55th 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, 2018

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.24 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 TCUQ4 2:15 4th & 5 at TCU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.7 pts
2. at USCQ4 6:40 4th & 2 at CAL 16, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. at USCQ3 1:45 4th & 2 at CAL 20, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at USCQ4 12:57 4th & 4 at CAL 49, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at BYUQ2 7:45 4th & 1 at CAL 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs UNCQ2 2:33 4th & 8 at UNC 36, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs COLOQ2 8:14 4th & 2 at COLO 7, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at BYUQ4 5:45 4th & 1 at CAL 29, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

66th of 130 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

   UNC
2. W

   BYU
3. W

   IDST
4. L

   ORE
5. L

   ARIZ
6. L

   UCLA
7. W

   ORST
8. W

   WASH
9. L

   WSU
10. W

    USC
11. W

    COLO
12. L

    STAN
13. L

    TCU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.31
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.08

Game by game

• UNCW 24-17 vs UNC67% → 98%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −1
• BYUW 21-18 at BYU45% → 95%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• IDSTW 45-23 vs IDST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• OREL 24-42 vs ORE44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• ARIZL 17-24 at ARIZ57% → 3%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −2
• UCLAL 7-37 vs UCLA72% → 1%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −65, Clock −1
• ORSTW 49-7 at ORST72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34
• WASHW 12-10 vs WASH20% → 91%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• WSUL 13-19 at WSU34% → 9%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• USCW 15-14 at USC39% → 95%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• COLOW 33-21 vs COLO77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• STANL 13-23 vs STAN43% → 4%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• TCUL 7-10 at TCU49% → 21%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +24

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.