Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.102nd
  Defense+0.381st
• 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.
  Offense35.0%4th
  Defense53.1%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1825th
  Defense+1.3125th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0115th
  Defense+0.302nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.081st
  Defense+0.512nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.5%15th
  Defense57.0%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.0%2nd
  Defense42.2%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.799th
  Defense3.3016th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%48th
  Defense17.0%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.5%6th
  Defense11.8%1st

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2022

1. Owen McCownQB75 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 184th of 234 QBs
   0.16WAR0.02 to 0.33
2. Deion SmithRB48 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 266th of 384 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
3. J.T. ShroutQB92 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 203rd of 234 QBs
   0.08WAR−0.10 to 0.27
4. Brendon LewisQB26 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 211th of 234 QBs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.12
5. Alex FontenotRB21 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 290th of 384 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Cole BeckerPK12 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 95th of 110 kickers
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.07
7. Brady RussellTE9 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 163rd of 214 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. R.J. Sneed IIWR11 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 392nd of 455 WRs
   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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61661661st of 129Roster talent: 616, 61st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918949th of 129Recruiting: 189, 49th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%40th of 128Returning production: 69%, 40th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.4−20.4122nd of 129SP+ rating: −20.4, 122nd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.06 of the 0.09 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 TCUQ2 0:00 4th & 16 at COLO 49, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.4 pts
2. vs CALQ3 3:39 4th & 1 at COLO 41, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs CALQ3 8:53 4th & 2 at COLO 28, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs TCUQ4 8:45 4th & 17 at COLO 32, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs TCUQ3 0:18 4th & 5 at TCU 41, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs UCLAQ2 7:06 4th & 1 at COLO 34, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at ORSTQ2 0:18 4th & 10 at ORST 37, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ASUQ1 5:51 4th & 4 at ASU 31, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

71st of 131 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. L

   TCU
2. L

   AF
3. L

   MINN
4. L

   UCLA
5. L

   ARIZ
6. W

   CAL
7. L

   ORST
8. L

   ASU
9. L

   ORE
10. L

    USC
11. L

    WASH
12. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2022

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−1.12
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.87

Game by game

• TCUL 13-38 vs TCU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• AFL 10-41 at AF14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• MINNL 7-49 at MINN4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• UCLAL 17-45 vs UCLA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• ARIZL 20-43 at ARIZ11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16
• CALW 20-13 vs CAL20% → 89%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −20
• ORSTL 9-42 at ORST8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• ASUL 34-42 vs ASU28% → 3%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• OREL 10-49 vs ORE4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• USCL 17-55 at USC3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• WASHL 7-54 at WASH4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −5
• UTAHL 21-63 vs UTAH3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6

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.