Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0836th
  Defense+0.1331st
• 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.
  Offense44.2%60th
  Defense46.2%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.076th
  Defense+1.1760th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0336th
  Defense+0.1511th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1343rd
  Defense+0.1255th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.8%72nd
  Defense51.6%15th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%33rd
  Defense33.3%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9464th
  Defense3.1912th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%87th
  Defense15.7%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.6%19th
  Defense1.3%6th

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, 2015

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2015

1. Sefo LiufauQB322 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 73rd of 205 QBs
   1.30WAR0.78 to 1.83
2. Nelson SpruceWR91 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 16th of 411 WRs
   0.38WAR0.25 to 0.50
3. Cade ApsayQB87 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 170th of 205 QBs
   0.25WAR0.13 to 0.36
4. Alex KinneyP49 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 14th of 92 punters
   0.16WAR0.07 to 0.25
5. Phillip Lindsay?96 plays · +0.080 pts/play
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
6. Diego GonzalezPK21 plays · +0.271 pts/play · 66th of 115 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
7. Christian Powell?46 plays · +0.121 pts/play
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. Shay FieldsWR52 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 205th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.19

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54254256th of 128Roster talent: 542, 56th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15515571st of 128Recruiting: 155, 71st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%28th of 127Returning production: 81%, 28th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.0−4.087th of 128SP+ rating: −4.0, 87th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.15 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 UCLAQ4 3:34 4th & 4 at UCLA 23, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
2. at ORSTQ4 1:39 4th & 1 at COLO 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at UTAHQ4 11:09 4th & 1 at COLO 29, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at CSUQ4 4:23 4th & 5 at CSU 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at UTAHQ2 2:35 4th & 4 at UTAH 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs ARIZQ2 13:30 4th & 2 at ARIZ 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at ORSTQ4 9:08 4th & 3 at COLO 35, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs OREQ2 9:21 4th & 4 at ORE 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

75th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   HAW
2. W

   MASS
3. W

   CSU
4. W

   NICH
5. L

   ORE
6. L

   ASU
7. L

   ARIZ
8. W

   ORST
9. L

   UCLA
10. L

    STAN
11. L

    USC
12. L

    WSU
13. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2015

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−0.86
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.63

Game by game

• MASSW 48-14 vs MASS86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• CSUW 27-24 at CSU53% → 89%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +18
• NICHW 48-0 vs NICH99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• OREL 24-41 vs ORE22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• ASUL 23-48 at ASU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts +1
• ARIZL 31-38 vs ARIZ32% → 8%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• ORSTW 17-13 at ORST47% → 94%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• UCLAL 31-35 at UCLA11% → 8%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −3
• STANL 10-42 vs STAN14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• USCL 24-27 vs USC15% → 5%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −25, Clock −2
• WSUL 3-27 at WSU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• UTAHL 14-20 at UTAH16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1

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.