Colorado State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2289th
  Defense+0.1626th
• 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.
  Offense49.0%95th
  Defense44.4%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2156th
  Defense+1.2724th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0861st
  Defense+0.1519th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3895th
  Defense+0.1935th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.6%93rd
  Defense48.6%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.6%96th
  Defense35.0%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0978th
  Defense3.2015th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%75th
  Defense18.0%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%92nd
  Defense14.6%27th

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, 2017

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
   ORST
2. L
   COLO
3. W
   ACU
4. L
   ALA
5. W
   HAW
6. W
   USU
7. W
   NEV
8. W
   UNM
9. L
   AF
10. L
    WYO
11. L
    BOIS
12. W
    SJSU
13. L
    MRSH

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

Players, 2017

1. Nick StevensQB360 plays · +0.331 pts/play · 11th of 226 QBs
   2.23WAR1.53 to 2.92
2. Dalyn DawkinsRB198 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 36th of 352 RBs
   0.48WAR0.32 to 0.61
3. Izzy MatthewsRB110 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 114th of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.36
4. Michael GallupWR119 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 17th of 426 WRs
   0.25WAR0.11 to 0.39
5. Wyatt BryanPK14 plays · +0.484 pts/play · 40th of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Detrich ClarkWR46 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 201st of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
7. Olabisi JohnsonWR49 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
8. Dalton FackrellTE27 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 25th of 199 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44244278th of 130Roster talent: 442, 78th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13313383rd of 130Recruiting: 133, 83rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%18th of 128Returning production: 82%, 18th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.9+3.957th of 128SP+ rating: +3.9, 57th of 128 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.22 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 BOISQ4 10:50 4th & 1 at BOIS 1, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.7 pts
2. at WYOQ3 5:19 4th & 11 at WYO 16, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
3. at UNMQ4 5:05 4th & 2 at UNM 34, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs BOISQ2 1:25 4th & 2 at BOIS 41, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
5. at COLOQ2 0:04 4th & 23 at COLO 46, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
6. vs NEVQ3 4:52 4th & 5 at NEV 33, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at USUQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at CSU 34, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at USUQ4 9:45 4th & 2 at USU 2, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

120th of 130 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

   ORST
2. L

   COLO
3. W

   ACU
4. L

   ALA
5. W

   HAW
6. W

   USU
7. W

   NEV
8. W

   UNM
9. L

   AF
10. L

    WYO
11. L

    BOIS
12. W

    SJSU
13. L

    MRSH

What moved it, 2017

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−0.71
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.76

Game by game

• ORSTW 58-27 vs ORST61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38
• COLOL 3-17 at COLO41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −1
• ACUW 38-10 vs ACU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ALAL 23-41 at ALA3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −6
• HAWW 51-21 at HAW72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34
• USUW 27-14 at USU76% → 98%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• NEVW 44-42 vs NEV95% → 88%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• UNMW 27-24 at UNM79% → 83%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• AFL 28-45 vs AF78% → 1%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −64, Clock −2
• WYOL 13-16 at WYO66% → 12%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −3
• BOISL 52-59 vs BOIS37% → 26%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −19
• SJSUW 42-14 vs SJSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• MRSHL 28-31 vs MRSH63% → 6%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3

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.