California

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1038th
  Defense+0.0764th
• 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.
  Offense41.5%35th
  Defense40.3%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2756th
  Defense+1.3033rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0224th
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1853rd
  Defense+0.1263rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%46th
  Defense45.5%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.3%37th
  Defense29.9%58th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6811th
  Defense2.9753rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%15th
  Defense17.8%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%10th
  Defense19.2%82nd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UCD
2. W
   AUB
3. W
   SDSU
4. L
   FSU
5. L
   MIA
6. L
   PITT
7. L
   NCSU
8. W
   ORST
9. W
   WAKE
10. L
    SYR
11. W
    STAN
12. L
    SMU
13. L
    UNLV

Bars above the line: better than expected for California.

Players, 2024

1. Fernando MendozaQB397 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 21st of 232 QBs
   2.15WAR1.46 to 2.94
2. Jack EndriesTE51 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 4th of 221 TEs
   0.26WAR0.12 to 0.39
3. Jaydn OttRB114 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 150th of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.29
4. Jaivian ThomasRB86 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 152nd of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.25
5. Lachlan WilsonP48 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 9th of 106 punters
   0.16WAR0.02 to 0.30
6. Nyziah HunterWR33 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 122nd of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
7. CJ HarrisQB36 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 203rd of 232 QBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
8. Ryan CoePK17 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 47th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70270247th of 131Roster talent: 702, 47th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18418460th of 131Recruiting: 184, 60th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%42nd of 130Returning production: 59%, 42nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.0+4.054th of 131SP+ rating: +4.0, 54th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.13 of the 0.15 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 WAKEQ4 2:16 4th & 4 at CAL 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
2. at FSUQ3 1:30 4th & 3 at FSU 33, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. at AUBQ2 4:44 4th & 3 at AUB 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at PITTQ2 11:54 4th & 1 at CAL 46, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs NCSUQ3 1:21 4th & 5 at NCSU 42, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at FSUQ2 10:10 4th & 2 at FSU 7, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at SMUQ2 0:36 4th & 7 at SMU 30, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs UCDQ2 9:44 4th & 1 at CAL 35, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

112th of 134 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

   UCD
2. W

   AUB
3. W

   SDSU
4. L

   FSU
5. L

   MIA
6. L

   PITT
7. L

   NCSU
8. W

   ORST
9. W

   WAKE
10. L

    SYR
11. W

    STAN
12. L

    SMU
13. L

    UNLV

What moved it, 2024

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−1.80
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.43

Game by game

• UCDW 31-13 vs UCD93% → 82%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −10
• AUBW 21-14 at AUB15% → 88%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• SDSUW 31-10 vs SDSU89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• FSUL 9-14 at FSU43% → 4%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• MIAL 38-39 vs MIA23% → 6%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• PITTL 15-17 at PITT39% → 7%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −1
• NCSUL 23-24 vs NCSU75% → 5%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• ORSTW 44-7 vs ORST84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20
• WAKEW 46-36 at WAKE71% → 37%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −6, Possession & field position +4
• SYRL 25-33 vs SYR76% → 3%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• STANW 24-21 vs STAN82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• SMUL 6-38 at SMU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• UNLVL 13-24 at UNLV46% → 3%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −38, 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.