Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0412th
  Defense+0.2024th
• 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.
  Offense36.1%7th
  Defense45.2%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.158th
  Defense+1.2649th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.1824th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.039th
  Defense+0.2439th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%16th
  Defense49.2%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.7%1st
  Defense37.1%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7615th
  Defense3.2329th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%22nd
  Defense18.3%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%9th
  Defense14.3%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, 2021

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
   UNCO
2. L
   TA&M
3. L
   MINN
4. L
   ASU
5. L
   USC
6. W
   ARIZ
7. L
   CAL
8. L
   ORE
9. W
   ORST
10. L
    UCLA
11. W
    WASH
12. L
    UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2021

1. Brendon LewisQB248 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 112th of 219 QBs
   0.66WAR0.21 to 1.12
2. Jarek BroussardRB130 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 66th of 387 RBs
   0.50WAR0.37 to 0.65
3. Alex FontenotRB83 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 168th of 387 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.33
4. Josh WattsP51 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 63rd of 101 punters
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.21
5. Daniel AriasWR16 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 369th of 474 WRs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
6. Cole BeckerPK17 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 92nd of 128 kickers
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.11
7. Dimitri StanleyWR13 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 406th of 474 WRs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
8. Brady RussellTE22 plays · +0.015 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.03 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64164147th of 130Roster talent: 641, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818849th of 130Recruiting: 188, 49th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%63rd of 128Returning production: 76%, 63rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.0−10.0104th of 130SP+ rating: −10.0, 104th 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, 2021

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 0.04 of the 0.10 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 TA&MQ4 14:47 4th & 2 at COLO 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs WASHQ4 14:35 4th & 4 at WASH 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs TA&MQ2 1:50 4th & 3 at TA&M 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs WASHQ3 8:34 4th & 2 at COLO 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs WASHQ2 1:17 4th & 2 at WASH 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs ORSTQ2 11:44 4th & 2 at ORST 16, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs ARIZQ3 9:19 4th & 3 at COLO 27, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ARIZQ1 8:26 4th & 1 at ARIZ 1, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

54th 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

   UNCO
2. L

   TA&M
3. L

   MINN
4. L

   ASU
5. L

   USC
6. W

   ARIZ
7. L

   CAL
8. L

   ORE
9. W

   ORST
10. L

    UCLA
11. W

    WASH
12. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2021

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−1.11
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.14

Game by game

• UNCOW 35-7 vs UNCO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TA&ML 7-10 vs TA&M11% → 5%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• MINNL 0-30 vs MINN54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts −1
• ASUL 13-35 at ASU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19
• USCL 14-37 vs USC22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• ARIZW 34-0 vs ARIZ68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33
• CALL 3-26 at CAL24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27
• OREL 29-52 at ORE5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• ORSTW 37-34 vs ORST23% → 59%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +36: Timeouts −24, Clock +15
• UCLAL 20-44 at UCLA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• WASHW 20-17 vs WASH29% → 93%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +3
• UTAHL 13-28 at UTAH7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12

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.