Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1258th
  Defense+0.1722nd
• 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.
  Offense44.8%67th
  Defense46.6%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1840th
  Defense+1.1857th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0757th
  Defense+0.225th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1755th
  Defense+0.1744th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.3%69th
  Defense49.3%27th
• 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%66th
  Defense40.7%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9561st
  Defense3.325th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.1%78th
  Defense13.9%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.8%85th
  Defense15.1%36th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   TXST
3. W
   UNCO
4. L
   WASH
5. L
   UCLA
6. L
   ARIZ
7. W
   ORST
8. L
   WSU
9. W
   CAL
10. L
    ASU
11. L
    USC
12. L
    UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2017

1. Steven MontezQB358 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 56th of 226 QBs
   1.24WAR0.59 to 1.92
2. Phillip Lindsay?237 plays · +0.200 pts/play
   0.89WAR0.71 to 1.08
3. James StefanouPK15 plays · +0.470 pts/play · 35th of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
4. Shay FieldsWR52 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 125th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Bryce BoboWR66 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 156th of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Devin RossWR46 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 302nd of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Jay MacIntyreWR22 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 311th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.08
8. Beau BisharatTE15 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 33rd of 199 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56956955th of 130Roster talent: 569, 55th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16916960th of 130Recruiting: 169, 60th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%32nd of 128Returning production: 75%, 32nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.0+2.064th of 128SP+ rating: +2.0, 64th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.11 of the 0.17 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 ARIZQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at ARIZ 33, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. vs CSUQ3 8:05 4th & 2 at CSU 36, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs CSUQ2 6:37 4th & 1 at COLO 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs USCQ4 5:33 4th & 6 at USC 22, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
5. vs WASHQ2 12:35 4th & 1 at COLO 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at WSUQ2 9:08 4th & 3 at WSU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at ASUQ3 11:02 4th & 7 at ASU 36, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs USCQ4 5:33 4th & 1 at USC 3, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

103rd of 130 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. W

   CSU
2. W

   TXST
3. W

   UNCO
4. L

   WASH
5. L

   UCLA
6. L

   ARIZ
7. W

   ORST
8. L

   WSU
9. W

   CAL
10. L

    ASU
11. L

    USC
12. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2017

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−1.02
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• CSUW 17-3 vs CSU59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +1
• TXSTW 37-3 vs TXST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• UNCOW 41-21 vs UNCO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• WASHL 10-37 vs WASH21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• UCLAL 23-27 at UCLA29% → 14%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• ARIZL 42-45 vs ARIZ69% → 7%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• ORSTW 36-33 at ORST76% → 94%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• WSUL 0-28 at WSU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28
• CALW 44-28 vs CAL66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• ASUL 30-41 at ASU32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• USCL 24-38 vs USC16% → 2%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• UTAHL 13-34 at UTAH27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29

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.