Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0321st
  Defense+0.0478th
• 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.
  Offense38.5%16th
  Defense35.8%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2754th
  Defense+1.521st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0236th
  Defense−0.0171st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0525th
  Defense+0.0780th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.5%13th
  Defense38.0%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.9%45th
  Defense32.2%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5816th
  Defense2.4688th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.6%15th
  Defense27.6%97th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%66th
  Defense21.7%98th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   UCLA
2. W
   STAN
3. W
   SDSU
4. W
   ARIZ
5. L
   UTAH
6. L
   TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2020

1. Jarek BroussardRB152 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 11th of 338 RBs
   0.63WAR0.49 to 0.74
2. Sam NoyerQB203 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 58th of 212 QBs
   0.61WAR0.21 to 0.99
3. Dimitri StanleyWR28 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
4. Jaren ManghamRB23 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 272nd of 338 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. K.D. NixonWR21 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 344th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05
6. Brady RussellTE10 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 92nd of 191 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
7. James StefanouPK2 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 94th of 97 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63063045th of 127Roster talent: 630, 45th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719741st of 127Recruiting: 197, 41st of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%120th of 127Returning production: 26%, 120th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.4−0.473rd of 127SP+ rating: −0.4, 73rd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.22 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 STANQ4 0:10 4th & 2 at STAN 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−6.4 pts
2. at ARIZQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at COLO 40, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs UCLAQ3 11:36 4th & 1 at UCLA 22, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at ARIZQ4 2:26 4th & 1 at ARIZ 1, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. vs UCLAQ2 11:33 4th & 4 at UCLA 41, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. vs SDSUQ2 1:52 4th & 1 at COLO 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs UTAHQ3 13:14 4th & 1 at COLO 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at STANQ4 5:49 4th & 1 at COLO 46, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

17th of 127 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

   UCLA
2. W

   STAN
3. W

   SDSU
4. W

   ARIZ
5. L

   UTAH
6. L

   TEX

What moved it, 2020

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+0.85
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.34

Game by game

• UCLAW 48-42 vs UCLA30% → 95%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• STANW 35-32 at STAN23% → 94%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• SDSUW 20-10 vs SDSU64% → 97%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• ARIZW 24-13 at ARIZ73% → 97%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• UTAHL 21-38 vs UTAH45% → 2%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• TEXL 23-55 vs TEX23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29, Clock −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.