Colorado State

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1029th
  Defense+0.1353rd
• 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.
  Offense40.4%26th
  Defense36.7%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2233rd
  Defense+1.398th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0316th
  Defense+0.0955th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2144th
  Defense+0.2056th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%25th
  Defense41.0%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%43rd
  Defense28.7%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9936th
  Defense2.9064th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%55th
  Defense21.5%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%47th
  Defense16.6%50th

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, 2021

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
   SDST
2. L
   VAN
3. W
   TOL
4. L
   IOWA
5. W
   SJSU
6. W
   UNM
7. L
   USU
8. L
   BOIS
9. L
   WYO
10. L
    AF
11. L
    HAW
12. L
    NEV

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

Players, 2021

1. Todd CenteioQB415 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 35th of 219 QBs
   1.93WAR1.22 to 2.61
2. David BaileyRB184 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 47th of 387 RBs
   0.57WAR0.42 to 0.74
3. A'Jon VivensRB87 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 195th of 387 RBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.31
4. Dante WrightWR38 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 145th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.18
5. Ryan StonehouseP54 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 46th of 101 punters
   0.12WAR−0.03 to 0.26
6. Cayden CamperPK23 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 33rd of 128 kickers
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Ty McCullouchWR24 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 282nd of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
8. Trey McBrideTE89 plays · +0.019 pts/play · 8th of 234 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.12 to 0.17

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44344393rd of 130Roster talent: 443, 93rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14914983rd of 130Recruiting: 149, 83rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%96th of 128Returning production: 55%, 96th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.4−2.487th of 130SP+ rating: −2.4, 87th 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, 2021

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 0.12 of the 0.18 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 AFQ4 8:08 4th & 10 at AF 19, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
2. vs VANQ3 8:45 4th & 1 at CSU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs VANQ2 1:57 4th & 1 at CSU 28, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs VANQ4 12:50 4th & 3 at CSU 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs BOISQ2 0:11 4th & 2 at BOIS 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at UNMQ3 7:30 4th & 1 at CSU 31, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs SJSUQ2 3:10 4th & 1 at CSU 23, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs BOISQ1 0:52 4th & 2 at BOIS 2, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

124th 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

   SDST
2. L

   VAN
3. W

   TOL
4. L

   IOWA
5. W

   SJSU
6. W

   UNM
7. L

   USU
8. L

   BOIS
9. L

   WYO
10. L

    AF
11. L

    HAW
12. L

    NEV

What moved it, 2021

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−2.08
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.03

Game by game

• SDSTL 23-42 vs SDST58% → 2%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• VANL 21-24 vs VAN62% → 22%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −3
• TOLW 22-6 at TOL16% → 99%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +65, Clock +3
• IOWAL 14-24 at IOWA6% → 3%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• SJSUW 32-14 vs SJSU59% → 98%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position −2
• UNMW 36-7 at UNM78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +28
• USUL 24-26 at USU61% → 26%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position +5
• BOISL 19-28 vs BOIS41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• WYOL 17-31 at WYO55% → 1%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• AFL 21-35 vs AF41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• HAWL 45-50 at HAW61% → 4%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −2
• NEVL 10-52 vs NEV38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, Clock −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.