Colorado State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2885th
  Defense+0.285th
• 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.
  Offense45.9%66th
  Defense53.1%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4598th
  Defense+1.1676th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2995th
  Defense+0.264th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3472nd
  Defense+0.511st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%55th
  Defense57.6%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.3%85th
  Defense38.1%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8426th
  Defense3.601st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%49th
  Defense12.5%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%31st
  Defense15.5%44th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Colorado State 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
   WYO
2. W
   SUU
3. L
   BYU
4. L
   UTSA
5. L
   ORST
6. L
   TXST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado State.

Players, 2026

1. K'saan FarrarQB81 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 110th of 192 QBs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.26
2. Hauss HejnyQB43 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 136th of 192 QBs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
3. Durell RobinsonRB44 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
4. Mel BrownRB43 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
5. RJ VickWR24 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 76th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
6. Juice VereenTE16 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 39th of 164 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
7. Tommy MaherWR8 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 281st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Kali NgumaPK2 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 78th of 82 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Colorado State'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64064075th of 138Roster talent: 640, 75th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16916978th of 138Recruiting: 169, 78th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%68th of 136Returning production: 40%, 68th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.8−7.8103rd of 138SP+ rating so far: −7.8, 103rd of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Colorado State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.03 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 UTSAQ4 2:09 4th & 6 at UTSA 34, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
2. vs SUUQ2 0:03 4th & 2 at SUU 33, up 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs ORSTQ2 1:52 4th & 4 at CSU 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs WYOQ2 10:31 4th & 3 at CSU 27, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at UTSAQ4 11:19 4th & 6 at UTSA 27, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs BYUQ2 2:56 4th & 4 at CSU 42, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs BYUQ2 12:24 4th & 3 at CSU 44, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at UTSAQ4 14:08 4th & 3 at CSU 31, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

81st of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Colorado State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   WYO
2. W

   SUU
3. L

   BYU
4. L

   UTSA
5. L

   ORST
6. L

   TXST

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Colorado State'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−0.37
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• WYOW 35-13 vs WYO58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +41, Clock −2
• SUUW 58-24 vs SUU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• BYUL 23-41 vs BYU10% → 2%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −19, Clock −2
• UTSAL 45-59 at UTSA16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• ORSTL 26-56 vs ORST32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• TXSTL 27-66 at TXST14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17

Points of win probability, from Colorado State's side.

Closest call

USU 37-42 CSU (2024) - Colorado State dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.