Colorado State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0936th
  Defense+0.238th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%30th
  Defense49.9%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2880th
  Defense+1.1959th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.049th
  Defense+0.1810th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1953rd
  Defense+0.3312th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%34th
  Defense55.6%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%36th
  Defense35.1%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5615th
  Defense3.414th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%57th
  Defense15.4%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%31st
  Defense14.7%25th

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, 2018

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
   HAW
2. L
   COLO
3. W
   ARK
4. L
   FLA
5. L
   ILST
6. W
   SJSU
7. W
   UNM
8. L
   BOIS
9. L
   WYO
10. L
    NEV
11. L
    USU
12. L
    AF

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

Players, 2018

1. K.J. Carta-SamuelsQB224 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 90th of 225 QBs
   0.91WAR0.60 to 1.28
2. Collin HillQB129 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 153rd of 225 QBs
   0.40WAR0.21 to 0.59
3. Izzy MatthewsRB143 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 126th of 351 RBs
   0.33WAR0.22 to 0.43
4. Preston WilliamsWR109 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 23rd of 434 WRs
   0.25WAR0.11 to 0.42
5. Olabisi JohnsonWR51 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 100th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.22
6. Ryan StonehouseP47 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 22nd of 91 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
7. Warren JacksonWR29 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 198th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. Wyatt BryanPK13 plays · +0.366 pts/play · 70th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48048075th of 130Roster talent: 480, 75th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14114184th of 130Recruiting: 141, 84th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  21%21%124th of 129Returning production: 21%, 124th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.3−10.3102nd of 130SP+ rating: −10.3, 102nd of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.08 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 SJSUQ3 3:23 4th & 1 at CSU 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. vs USUQ2 0:02 4th & 12 at CSU 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
3. vs WYOQ2 0:53 4th & 10 at WYO 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs USUQ3 7:28 4th & 4 at USU 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs UNMQ3 2:35 4th & 3 at UNM 4, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs UNMQ4 2:29 4th & 1 at UNM 1, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at SJSUQ3 7:12 4th & 2 at CSU 25, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ARKQ3 13:19 4th & 4 at CSU 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

105th 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. L

   HAW
2. L

   COLO
3. W

   ARK
4. L

   FLA
5. L

   ILST
6. W

   SJSU
7. W

   UNM
8. L

   BOIS
9. L

   WYO
10. L

    NEV
11. L

    USU
12. L

    AF

What moved it, 2018

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−1.57
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.72

Game by game

• HAWL 34-43 vs HAW87% → 4%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• COLOL 13-45 vs COLO61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −61
• ARKW 34-27 vs ARK14% → 92%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position +2
• FLAL 10-48 at FLA6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• ILSTL 19-35 vs ILST67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• SJSUW 42-30 at SJSU49% → 98%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• UNMW 20-18 vs UNM43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +52, Clock −4
• BOISL 28-56 at BOIS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• WYOL 21-34 vs WYO41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• NEVL 10-49 at NEV14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• USUL 24-29 vs USU4% → 13%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +9: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• AFL 19-27 at AF16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1

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.