Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1561st
  Defense+0.2212th
• 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.
  Offense45.1%64th
  Defense48.6%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1319th
  Defense+1.1957th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1579th
  Defense+0.0748th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1843rd
  Defense+0.364th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%74th
  Defense52.1%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%36th
  Defense39.3%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1983rd
  Defense2.9837th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%87th
  Defense15.2%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%91st
  Defense17.6%19th

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, 2019

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. L
   AF
4. W
   ASU
5. L
   ARIZ
6. L
   ORE
7. L
   WSU
8. L
   USC
9. L
   UCLA
10. W
    STAN
11. W
    WASH
12. L
    UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2019

1. Steven MontezQB407 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 38th of 228 QBs
   1.50WAR0.77 to 2.22
2. Alex FontenotRB194 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 44th of 349 RBs
   0.54WAR0.40 to 0.69
3. Jaren ManghamRB107 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 141st of 349 RBs
   0.31WAR0.24 to 0.38
4. Laviska Shenault Jr.WR90 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 22nd of 439 WRs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.40
5. Tony BrownWR63 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 93rd of 439 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
6. K.D. NixonWR55 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 174th of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
7. James StefanouPK15 plays · +0.340 pts/play · 80th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
8. Alex KinneyP49 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 26th of 100 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 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

What it had and what it did, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61461448th of 130Roster talent: 614, 48th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18618647th of 130Recruiting: 186, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%12th of 130Returning production: 85%, 12th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.1−4.181st of 130SP+ rating: −4.1, 81st 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, 2019

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 0.09 of the 0.14 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 STANQ3 9:30 4th & 1 at COLO 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs ARIZQ4 11:29 4th & 3 at ARIZ 3, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs NEBQ4 8:30 4th & 3 at NEB 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at ASUQ2 0:28 4th & 1 at ASU 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at ASUQ4 10:21 4th & 2 at COLO 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs WASHQ4 7:45 4th & 4 at COLO 40, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs USCQ4 6:16 4th & 9 at USC 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs ARIZQ2 2:37 4th & 3 at ARIZ 22, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

44th 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. L

   AF
4. W

   ASU
5. L

   ARIZ
6. L

   ORE
7. L

   WSU
8. L

   USC
9. L

   UCLA
10. W

    STAN
11. W

    WASH
12. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2019

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−0.03
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.21
• Timeouts−0.44
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.97

Game by game

• CSUW 52-31 vs CSU85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20
• NEBW 34-31 vs NEB37% → 78%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −25
• AFL 23-30 vs AF62% → 17%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −19
• ASUW 34-31 at ASU32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ARIZL 30-35 vs ARIZ59% → 5%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• OREL 3-45 at ORE6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• WSUL 10-41 at WSU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −24
• USCL 31-35 vs USC23% → 6%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• UCLAL 14-31 at UCLA35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• STANW 16-13 vs STAN40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +40, Possession & field position +1
• WASHW 20-14 vs WASH19% → 96%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• UTAHL 15-45 at UTAH4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7

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.