Colorado State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.2487th
  Defense+0.1822nd
• 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.
  Offense46.1%75th
  Defense42.8%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2778th
  Defense+1.3212th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1363rd
  Defense+0.1039th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4194th
  Defense+0.309th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.8%88th
  Defense47.2%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%31st
  Defense34.5%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2383rd
  Defense2.8265th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%88th
  Defense19.6%52nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%88th
  Defense15.8%44th

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, 2016

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

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

Players, 2016

1. Nick StevensQB108 plays · +0.286 pts/play · 120th of 218 QBs
   0.58WAR0.37 to 0.78
2. Collin HillQB110 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 141st of 218 QBs
   0.37WAR0.19 to 0.54
3. Izzy MatthewsRB95 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 95th of 347 RBs
   0.36WAR0.25 to 0.47
4. Hayden HuntP38 plays · +0.299 pts/play · 17th of 82 punters
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.26
5. Dalyn DawkinsRB131 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 178th of 347 RBs
   0.20WAR0.07 to 0.32
6. Michael GallupWR71 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 76th of 417 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
7. Marvin Kinsey Jr.RB44 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 212th of 347 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
8. Faton BautaQB32 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 197th of 218 QBs
   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 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41241290th of 128Roster talent: 412, 90th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12512589th of 128Recruiting: 125, 89th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%97th of 128Returning production: 52%, 97th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.8+0.864th of 128SP+ rating: +0.8, 64th 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, 2016

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 1 clear-cut one accounts for 0.02 of the 0.06 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 USUQ3 12:13 4th & 3 at USU 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.4 pts
2. vs WYOQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at WYO 18, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
3. vs UNMQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at CSU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
4. at BOISQ2 11:17 4th & 2 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
5. vs USUQ4 2:15 4th & 3 at CSU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
6. vs WYOQ4 4:20 4th & 5 at WYO 24, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts
7. at UNLVQ2 15:00 4th & 11 at UNLV 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.2 pts
8. vs USUQ2 5:18 4th & 2 at CSU 31, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

32nd 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   COLO
2. W

   UTSA
3. W

   UNCO
4. L

   MINN
5. L

   WYO
6. W

   USU
7. L

   BOIS
8. W

   UNLV
9. W

   FRES
10. L

    AF
11. W

    UNM
12. W

    SDSU
13. L

    IDHO

What moved it, 2016

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+0.89
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• COLOL 7-44 vs COLO24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26
• UTSAW 23-14 vs UTSA71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• UNCOW 47-21 vs UNCO93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• MINNL 24-31 at MINN12% → 3%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• WYOL 17-38 vs WYO65% → 0%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• USUW 31-24 vs USU34% → 96%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• BOISL 23-28 at BOIS5% → 9%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• UNLVW 42-23 at UNLV47% → 99%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +54, Clock +2
• FRESW 37-0 vs FRES81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• UNMW 49-31 vs UNM63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• SDSUW 63-31 at SDSU21% → 100%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +70, Clock +1
• IDHOL 50-61 vs IDHO82% → 2%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −60, Clock −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.