Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0626th
  Defense+0.1052nd
• 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.
  Offense39.0%15th
  Defense41.8%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3998th
  Defense+1.1958th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0216th
  Defense+0.0464th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1545th
  Defense+0.1746th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%15th
  Defense46.9%51st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.8%28th
  Defense32.0%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.499th
  Defense2.9443rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.7%7th
  Defense21.7%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%14th
  Defense15.6%40th

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, 2018

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2018

1. Steven MontezQB400 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 35th of 225 QBs
   1.71WAR1.13 to 2.39
2. Travon McMillianRB175 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 68th of 351 RBs
   0.44WAR0.30 to 0.57
3. Laviska Shenault Jr.WR112 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 17th of 434 WRs
   0.29WAR0.15 to 0.44
4. Kyle Evans?55 plays · +0.164 pts/play
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
5. K.D. NixonWR53 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 125th of 434 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
6. Juwann WinfreeWR36 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
7. Jay MacIntyreWR25 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 315th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
8. James StefanouPK5 plays · +0.367 pts/play · 104th of 112 kickers
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57657653rd of 130Roster talent: 576, 53rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17817852nd of 130Recruiting: 178, 52nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%79th of 129Returning production: 59%, 79th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.7−0.779th of 130SP+ rating: −0.7, 79th of 130 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, 2018

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.13 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 ARIZQ4 10:12 4th & 9 at ARIZ 29, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
2. at ARIZQ3 0:00 4th & 3 at ARIZ 31, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs UCLAQ3 14:51 4th & 3 at UCLA 43, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs WSUQ2 7:00 4th & 2 at COLO 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs UTAHQ3 0:50 4th & 7 at COLO 28, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs UTAHQ4 12:43 4th & 8 at COLO 27, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs WSUQ3 2:18 4th & 11 at WSU 36, down 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs ASUQ3 6:24 4th & 2 at COLO 12, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

94th 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

   NEB
3. W

   UNH
4. W

   UCLA
5. W

   ASU
6. L

   USC
7. L

   WASH
8. L

   ORST
9. L

   ARIZ
10. L

    WSU
11. L

    UTAH
12. L

    CAL

What moved it, 2018

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−0.18
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.08

Game by game

• CSUW 45-13 at CSU39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +61
• NEBW 33-28 at NEB41% → 89%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +45, Clock +4
• UNHW 45-14 vs UNH99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UCLAW 38-16 vs UCLA75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• ASUW 28-21 vs ASU56% → 94%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• USCL 20-31 at USC33% → 2%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +1
• WASHL 13-27 at WASH11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• ORSTL 34-41 vs ORST94% → 59%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −35: Timeouts −15, Clock +9
• ARIZL 34-42 at ARIZ41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• WSUL 7-31 vs WSU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• UTAHL 7-30 vs UTAH33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• CALL 21-33 at CAL23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, 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.