California

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+0.1547th
  Defense+0.1356th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%57th
  Defense43.2%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1922nd
  Defense+1.2365th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2588th
  Defense+0.1148th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1121st
  Defense+0.2148th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.4%67th
  Defense48.7%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%36th
  Defense32.0%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5395th
  Defense3.2526th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.8%95th
  Defense12.8%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%93rd
  Defense16.1%38th

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for California.

Players, 2021

1. Chase GarbersQB414 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 39th of 219 QBs
   1.88WAR1.06 to 2.66
2. Damien MooreRB107 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 129th of 387 RBs
   0.34WAR0.23 to 0.42
3. Trevon ClarkWR49 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 47th of 474 WRs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.29
4. Kekoa CrawfordWR50 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 163rd of 474 WRs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.19
5. Nikko RemigioWR59 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 177th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Jeremiah HunterWR28 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 234th of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.13
7. Marcel DancyRB36 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 297th of 387 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
8. Dario LonghettoPK13 plays · +0.322 pts/play · 55th of 128 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66266240th of 130Roster talent: 662, 40th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020038th of 130Recruiting: 200, 38th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  98%98%8th of 128Returning production: 98%, 8th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.4+3.468th of 130SP+ rating: +3.4, 68th 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 California's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.13 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 WASHQ2 7:06 4th & 20 at WASH 20, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
2. vs ORSTQ2 3:04 4th & 1 at CAL 33, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at OREQ2 8:09 4th & 1 at CAL 20, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs NEVQ4 12:59 4th & 3 at NEV 6, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs NEVQ3 10:06 4th & 3 at CAL 39, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at UCLAQ3 12:28 4th & 2 at CAL 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at TCUQ3 3:26 4th & 4 at TCU 48, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs NEVQ3 4:17 4th & 3 at CAL 44, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

111th 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. L

   NEV
2. L

   TCU
3. W

   SAC
4. L

   WASH
5. L

   WSU
6. L

   ORE
7. W

   COLO
8. W

   ORST
9. L

   ARIZ
10. W

    STAN
11. L

    UCLA
12. W

    USC

What moved it, 2021

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−1.36
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.31

Game by game

• NEVL 17-22 vs NEV62% → 3%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• TCUL 32-34 at TCU22% → 5%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −25
• SACW 42-30 vs SAC95% → 96%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• WASHL 24-31 at WASH30% → 5%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position +1
• WSUL 6-21 vs WSU73% → 1%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3
• OREL 17-24 at ORE19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• COLOW 26-3 vs COLO76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27
• ORSTW 39-25 vs ORST52% → 92%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +3
• ARIZL 3-10 at ARIZ75% → 3%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• STANW 41-11 at STAN64% → 97%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• UCLAL 14-42 at UCLA35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −36
• USCW 24-14 vs USC61% → 97%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +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.