Colorado State

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+0.1257th
  Defense+0.1236th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%83rd
  Defense42.6%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.089th
  Defense+1.2622nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0957th
  Defense+0.169th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2162nd
  Defense+0.0868th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%81st
  Defense45.0%61st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.2%72nd
  Defense37.6%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1988th
  Defense2.8944th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%76th
  Defense21.6%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%65th
  Defense1.4%12th

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 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
   SAV
2. L
   MINN
3. L
   COLO
4. W
   UTSA
5. L
   USU
6. L
   BOIS
7. W
   AF
8. L
   SDSU
9. W
   WYO
10. W
    UNLV
11. W
    UNM
12. W
    FRES
13. L
    NEV

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

Players, 2015

1. Nick StevensQB318 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 55th of 205 QBs
   1.58WAR1.03 to 2.09
2. Rashard HigginsWR86 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 6th of 411 WRs
   0.44WAR0.30 to 0.57
3. Jasen Oden Jr.RB143 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 78th of 333 RBs
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.39
4. Izzy MatthewsRB71 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 131st of 333 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
5. Dalyn DawkinsRB176 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 131st of 333 RBs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.31
6. Hayden HuntP42 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 13th of 92 punters
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
7. Coleman KeyQB40 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 182nd of 205 QBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
8. Joe HansleyWR46 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 146th of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  38938994th of 128Roster talent: 389, 94th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  112112103rd of 128Recruiting: 112, 103rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%86th of 127Returning production: 48%, 86th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.5+0.572nd of 128SP+ rating: +0.5, 72nd 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 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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.21 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. vs COLOQ4 2:37 4th & 6 at COLO 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. vs MINNQ4 8:08 4th & 3 at midfield, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at UTSAQ4 10:28 4th & 4 at CSU 40, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. at UTSAQ4 10:53 4th & 3 at UTSA 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at USUQ2 0:01 4th & 15 at midfield, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
6. vs COLOQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at CSU 24, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs SDSUQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at CSU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs NEVQ2 1:46 4th & 3 at NEV 3, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

63rd of 128 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

   SAV
2. L

   MINN
3. L

   COLO
4. W

   UTSA
5. L

   USU
6. L

   BOIS
7. W

   AF
8. L

   SDSU
9. W

   WYO
10. W

    UNLV
11. W

    UNM
12. W

    FRES
13. L

    NEV

What moved it, 2015

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+0.35
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.29
• Timeouts−0.32
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.04

Game by game

• SAVW 65-13 vs SAV73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28
• MINNL 20-23 vs MINN38% → 12%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −17
• COLOL 24-27 vs COLO47% → 11%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −18
• UTSAW 33-31 at UTSA74% → 90%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• USUL 18-33 at USU32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• BOISL 10-41 vs BOIS21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• AFW 38-23 vs AF39% → 99%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +2
• SDSUL 17-41 vs SDSU40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45, Clock −1
• WYOW 26-7 at WYO77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +32, Clock +1
• UNLVW 49-35 vs UNLV66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• UNMW 28-21 at UNM52% → 95%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• FRESW 34-31 at FRES70% → 92%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +36, Clock +3
• NEVL 23-28 vs NEV59% → 17%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −43, Possession & field position +4

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.