Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1445th
  Defense+0.2513th
• 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.
  Offense44.4%61st
  Defense45.4%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1432nd
  Defense+1.2820th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0119th
  Defense+0.2014th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2561st
  Defense+0.3217th
• 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%52nd
  Defense50.4%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.1%76th
  Defense34.1%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7639th
  Defense3.289th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%42nd
  Defense18.4%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%90th
  Defense1.4%13th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 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
   CSU
2. W
   MASS
3. L
   ASU
4. W
   HAW
5. L
   CAL
6. L
   ORST
7. L
   USC
8. L
   UCLA
9. L
   WASH
10. L
    ARIZ
11. L
    ORE
12. L
    UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2014

1. Sefo LiufauQB475 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 20th of 199 QBs
   2.20WAR1.44 to 2.92
2. Nelson SpruceWR126 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 3rd of 469 WRs
   0.52WAR0.35 to 0.69
3. Michael Adkins II?74 plays · +0.150 pts/play
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.27
4. Christian Powell?75 plays · +0.121 pts/play
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
5. Tony Jones?74 plays · +0.109 pts/play
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
6. Shay FieldsWR65 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 154th of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.24
7. Will OliverPK14 plays · +0.465 pts/play · 40th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
8. D.D. GoodsonWR44 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 247th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14

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'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.27 of the 0.33 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 MASSQ4 2:47 4th & 28 at COLO 18, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−14.1 pts
2. vs UTAHQ4 9:49 4th & 2 at UTAH 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. vs UCLAQ3 3:57 4th & 1 at COLO 40, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs ORSTQ4 10:52 4th & 2 at ORST 27, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at ARIZQ2 4:09 4th & 1 at ARIZ 1, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. vs HAWQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at HAW 44, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs CSUQ3 4:11 4th & 3 at CSU 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. at ARIZQ4 14:24 4th & 3 at COLO 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

122nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Colorado's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   CSU
2. W

   MASS
3. L

   ASU
4. W

   HAW
5. L

   CAL
6. L

   ORST
7. L

   USC
8. L

   UCLA
9. L

   WASH
10. L

    ARIZ
11. L

    ORE
12. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Colorado'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−2.36
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.72

Game by game

• CSUL 17-31 vs CSU59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• MASSW 41-38 at MASS88% → 78%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −2
• ASUL 24-38 vs ASU16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• HAWW 21-12 vs HAW73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• CALL 56-59 at CAL19% → 21%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts +18
• ORSTL 31-36 vs ORST30% → 9%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• USCL 28-56 at USC8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• UCLAL 37-40 vs UCLA16% → 12%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −11
• WASHL 23-38 vs WASH41% → 2%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• ARIZL 20-38 at ARIZ15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• OREL 10-44 at ORE2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• UTAHL 34-38 vs UTAH25% → 8%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Colorado's side.

Closest call

BAY 31-38 COLO (2024) - Colorado dropped to a 3.1% win probability before pulling it out.