Colorado State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0733rd
  Defense+0.1339th
• 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%45th
  Defense43.1%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1920th
  Defense+1.1878th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.131st
  Defense+0.0948th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3070th
  Defense+0.2632nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%54th
  Defense49.1%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%40th
  Defense30.1%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.675th
  Defense3.0652nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%15th
  Defense18.6%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%67th
  Defense15.9%45th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   WSU
2. L
   COLO
3. W
   MTSU
4. W
   UTU
5. L
   USU
6. W
   BOIS
7. L
   UNLV
8. L
   AF
9. L
   WYO
10. W
    SDSU
11. W
    NEV
12. L
    HAW

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

Players, 2023

1. Brayden Fowler-NicolosiQB402 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 108th of 250 QBs
   0.77WAR−0.14 to 1.71
2. Tory HortonWR73 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 12th of 457 WRs
   0.34WAR0.16 to 0.52
3. Dallin HolkerTE54 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 5th of 212 TEs
   0.24WAR0.11 to 0.38
4. Justus Ross-SimmonsWR42 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 83rd of 457 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.29
5. Vann SchieldRB80 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 184th of 383 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
6. Justin MarshallRB52 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 190th of 383 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
7. Louis Brown IVWR40 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 136th of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.21
8. Dylan GoffneyWR19 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 180th of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  414414108th of 130Roster talent: 414, 108th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15415478th of 130Recruiting: 154, 78th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  92%92%5th of 128Returning production: 92%, 5th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.9−8.996th of 130SP+ rating: −8.9, 96th 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, 2023

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 0.10 of the 0.16 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 COLOQ3 7:40 4th & 2 at COLO 35, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. at UNLVQ3 0:16 4th & 4 at UNLV 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs UTUQ3 11:28 4th & 1 at CSU 31, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at COLOQ4 2:06 4th & 2 at COLO 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at HAWQ3 6:48 4th & 1 at CSU 34, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at WYOQ2 1:38 4th & 1 at CSU 31, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs WSUQ2 7:02 4th & 1 at CSU 29, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs WSUQ3 7:52 4th & 17 at CSU 46, down 26Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

95th of 133 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

   WSU
2. L

   COLO
3. W

   MTSU
4. W

   UTU
5. L

   USU
6. W

   BOIS
7. L

   UNLV
8. L

   AF
9. L

   WYO
10. W

    SDSU
11. W

    NEV
12. L

    HAW

What moved it, 2023

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−0.83
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.03

Game by game

• WSUL 24-50 vs WSU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33
• COLOL 35-43 at COLO11% → 8%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts +8
• MTSUW 31-23 at MTSU50% → 95%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• UTUW 41-20 vs UTU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• USUL 24-44 at USU65% → 0%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −55, Clock +1
• BOISW 31-30 vs BOIS31% → 95%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position +2
• UNLVL 23-25 at UNLV43% → 7%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +2
• AFL 13-30 vs AF25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• WYOL 15-24 at WYO41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• SDSUW 22-19 vs SDSU64% → 95%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +3
• NEVW 30-20 vs NEV86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• HAWL 24-27 at HAW70% → 4%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position −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.