Colorado State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.026th
  Defense+0.1144th
• 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.
  Offense33.4%2nd
  Defense42.9%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4398th
  Defense+1.1774th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0310th
  Defense+0.1034th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.025th
  Defense+0.1952nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.3%1st
  Defense49.1%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.8%7th
  Defense29.3%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8715th
  Defense3.0648th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%9th
  Defense16.1%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.4%1st
  Defense16.8%59th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   MICH
2. L
   MTSU
3. L
   WSU
4. L
   SAC
5. W
   NEV
6. L
   USU
7. W
   HAW
8. L
   BOIS
9. L
   SJSU
10. L
    WYO
11. L
    AF
12. W
    UNM

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

Players, 2022

1. Clay MillenQB231 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 100th of 234 QBs
   0.76WAR0.33 to 1.25
2. Avery MorrowRB170 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 100th of 384 RBs
   0.29WAR0.15 to 0.43
3. Tory HortonWR64 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 23rd of 455 WRs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.39
4. Brayden Fowler-NicolosiQB37 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 198th of 234 QBs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
5. A'Jon VivensRB34 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 291st of 384 RBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
6. Tanner ArkinTE14 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 112th of 214 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. David BaileyRB15 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 321st of 384 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Ty McCullouchWR6 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 403rd of 455 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  431431101st of 129Roster talent: 431, 101st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14914982nd of 129Recruiting: 149, 82nd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%110th of 128Returning production: 28%, 110th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −22.2−22.2123rd of 129SP+ rating: −22.2, 123rd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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 NEVQ3 4:17 4th & 1 at CSU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs UNMQ2 6:49 4th & 1 at CSU 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs UNMQ3 4:26 4th & 1 at CSU 23, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs USUQ3 10:02 4th & 3 at CSU 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at SJSUQ4 4:21 4th & 24 at SJSU 40, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs MTSUQ4 7:45 4th & 8 at CSU 33, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs HAWQ2 12:41 4th & 2 at HAW 21, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs HAWQ2 1:26 4th & 8 at HAW 33, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

100th of 131 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

   MICH
2. L

   MTSU
3. L

   WSU
4. L

   SAC
5. W

   NEV
6. L

   USU
7. W

   HAW
8. L

   BOIS
9. L

   SJSU
10. L

    WYO
11. L

    AF
12. W

    UNM

What moved it, 2022

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−1.21
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.45

Game by game

• MICHL 7-51 at MICH2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• MTSUL 19-34 vs MTSU81% → 2%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −61, Clock −2
• WSUL 7-38 at WSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18
• SACL 10-41 vs SAC44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position −1
• NEVW 17-14 at NEV44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• USUL 13-17 vs USU16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• HAWW 17-13 vs HAW70% → 78%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14, Clock +1
• BOISL 10-49 at BOIS5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• SJSUL 16-28 at SJSU6% → 5%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −12, Clock −1
• WYOL 13-14 vs WYO31% → 26%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −29, Clock −4
• AFL 12-24 at AF7% → 2%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• UNMW 17-0 vs UNM70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +32, 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.