Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1150th
  Defense0.0088th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%56th
  Defense38.2%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1120th
  Defense+1.1377th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0850th
  Defense+0.0368th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1852nd
  Defense−0.0190th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%52nd
  Defense44.0%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.0%63rd
  Defense27.7%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0255th
  Defense3.0929th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%50th
  Defense11.7%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%77th
  Defense17.9%72nd

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, 2016

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. W
   CSU
2. W
   IDST
3. L
   MICH
4. W
   ORE
5. W
   ORST
6. L
   USC
7. W
   ASU
8. W
   STAN
9. W
   UCLA
10. W
    ARIZ
11. W
    WSU
12. W
    UTAH
13. L
    WASH
14. L
    OKST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2016

1. Sefo LiufauQB357 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 65th of 218 QBs
   1.22WAR0.62 to 1.80
2. Phillip Lindsay?221 plays · +0.176 pts/play
   0.73WAR0.53 to 0.92
3. Steven MontezQB157 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 115th of 218 QBs
   0.60WAR0.37 to 0.84
4. Shay FieldsWR63 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 53rd of 417 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.32
5. Alex KinneyP51 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 44th of 82 punters
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.24
6. Kyle Evans?53 plays · +0.138 pts/play
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
7. Devin RossWR85 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 156th of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.25
8. Bryce BoboWR49 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 220th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52652662nd of 128Roster talent: 526, 62nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15715771st of 128Recruiting: 157, 71st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%42nd of 128Returning production: 76%, 42nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.3+6.353rd of 128SP+ rating: +6.3, 53rd 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, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 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 OREQ4 4:45 4th & 1 at COLO 16, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. vs UCLAQ3 7:28 4th & 2 at UCLA 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs UTAHQ2 5:21 4th & 2 at UTAH 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs UCLAQ2 10:42 4th & 1 at COLO 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs OKSTQ2 9:17 4th & 1 at COLO 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at STANQ2 1:04 4th & 5 at STAN 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs CSUQ2 5:41 4th & 1 at COLO 33, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs ASUQ2 12:54 4th & 3 at ASU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

21st 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 13 of 14 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   CSU
2. W

   IDST
3. L

   MICH
4. W

   ORE
5. W

   ORST
6. L

   USC
7. W

   ASU
8. W

   STAN
9. W

   UCLA
10. W

    ARIZ
11. W

    WSU
12. W

    UTAH
13. L

    WASH
14. L

    OKST

What moved it, 2016

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+1.23
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.01

Game by game

• CSUW 44-7 vs CSU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• IDSTW 56-7 vs IDST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MICHL 28-45 at MICH10% → 2%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −15
• OREW 41-38 at ORE24% → 92%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +53, Clock +4
• ORSTW 47-6 vs ORST85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• USCL 17-21 at USC38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −3
• ASUW 40-16 vs ASU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• STANW 10-5 at STAN41% → 88%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• UCLAW 20-10 vs UCLA73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30
• WSUW 38-24 vs WSU64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• UTAHW 27-22 vs UTAH79% → 95%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• WASHL 10-41 at WASH31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +1
• OKSTL 8-38 vs OKST55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −56, 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.