Colorado State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0321st
  Defense+0.1816th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%28th
  Defense45.3%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1719th
  Defense+1.2454th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0336th
  Defense+0.1036th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0921st
  Defense+0.3311th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.8%40th
  Defense49.2%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.
  Offense28.3%36th
  Defense34.9%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9754th
  Defense3.2610th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%44th
  Defense14.9%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%7th
  Defense13.2%14th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   WASH
2. W
   UNCO
3. L
   UTSA
4. L
   WSU
5. L
   SDSU
6. W
   FRES
7. L
   HAW
8. L
   WYO
9. L
   UNLV
10. L
    UNM
11. L
    BOIS
12. L
    AF

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

Players, 2025

1. Jackson BrousseauQB202 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 105th of 231 QBs
   0.76WAR0.39 to 1.08
2. Jalen DupreeRB87 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 142nd of 365 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
3. Lloyd AvantRB89 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 156th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Brayden Fowler-NicolosiQB57 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 176th of 231 QBs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.29
5. Darius CurryQB57 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 179th of 231 QBs
   0.15WAR0.03 to 0.25
6. Rocky BeersTE31 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 16th of 213 TEs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Bryan HansenP50 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 6th of 100 punters
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.19
8. Justin MarshallRB50 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 249th of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58458492nd of 134Roster talent: 584, 92nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016078th of 134Recruiting: 160, 78th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%40th of 132Returning production: 50%, 40th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.6−15.6122nd of 134SP+ rating: −15.6, 122nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.04 of the 0.11 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 WSUQ4 14:20 4th & 13 at WSU 46, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
2. vs UNLVQ2 0:17 4th & 6 at UNLV 24, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
3. vs UTSAQ4 12:35 4th & 3 at CSU 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs FRESQ3 9:26 4th & 1 at CSU 40, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs FRESQ3 9:26 4th & 1 at CSU 40, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at WASHQ4 10:22 4th & 10 at CSU 39, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs WSUQ4 9:36 4th & 10 at WSU 49, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at WASHQ4 4:48 4th & 12 at CSU 34, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

130th of 136 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

   WASH
2. W

   UNCO
3. L

   UTSA
4. L

   WSU
5. L

   SDSU
6. W

   FRES
7. L

   HAW
8. L

   WYO
9. L

   UNLV
10. L

    UNM
11. L

    BOIS
12. L

    AF

What moved it, 2025

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−3.09
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.14

Game by game

• WASHL 21-38 at WASH7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −13
• UNCOW 21-17 vs UNCO98% → 57%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −41: Possession & field position −2, Scoreboard +1
• UTSAL 16-17 vs UTSA34% → 6%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• WSUL 3-20 vs WSU65% → 1%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• SDSUL 24-45 at SDSU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1
• FRESW 49-21 vs FRES39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −1
• HAWL 19-31 vs HAW59% → 2%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• WYOL 0-28 at WYO31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• UNLVL 10-42 vs UNLV40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• UNML 17-20 at UNM24% → 12%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• BOISL 21-49 at BOIS11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• AFL 21-42 vs AF47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, 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.