Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1867th
  Defense+0.2211th
• 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.
  Offense41.4%43rd
  Defense47.3%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3483rd
  Defense+1.2557th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.058th
  Defense+0.1235th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3171st
  Defense+0.3513th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%24th
  Defense51.0%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%77th
  Defense38.7%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1047th
  Defense3.1244th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.0%69th
  Defense17.1%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%33rd
  Defense15.5%31st

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TCU
2. W
   NEB
3. W
   CSU
4. L
   ORE
5. L
   USC
6. W
   ASU
7. L
   STAN
8. L
   UCLA
9. L
   ORST
10. L
    ARIZ
11. L
    WSU
12. L
    UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2023

1. Shedeur SandersQB422 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 12th of 250 QBs
   2.17WAR1.35 to 3.13
2. Travis HunterWR54 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 66th of 457 WRs
   0.21WAR0.08 to 0.34
3. Xavier WeaverWR61 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 95th of 457 WRs
   0.17WAR0.04 to 0.31
4. Dylan EdwardsRB94 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 166th of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.28
5. Mark VassettP56 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 24th of 103 punters
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
6. Michael HarrisonTE24 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 67th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Anthony HankersonRB65 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 256th of 383 RBs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Jimmy Horn Jr.WR61 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 278th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.07 to 0.19

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71271235th of 130Roster talent: 712, 35th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619641st of 130Recruiting: 196, 41st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  8%8%126th of 128Returning production: 8%, 126th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.9−4.979th of 130SP+ rating: −4.9, 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, 2023

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 0.13 of the 0.17 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 ARIZQ4 8:24 4th & 1 at COLO 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it6.0 pts
2. vs CSUQ4 14:24 4th & 2 at CSU 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.7 pts
3. vs ARIZQ3 9:16 4th & 1 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it3.5 pts
4. vs STANQ4 2:55 4th & 8 at STAN 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
5. vs STANQ3 5:06 4th & 1 at COLO 34, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
6. vs ORSTQ2 2:55 4th & 4 at COLO 41, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
7. at ASUQ2 11:28 4th & 3 at COLO 20, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs NEBQ2 4:20 4th & 4 at NEB 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

57th of 133 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

   TCU
2. W

   NEB
3. W

   CSU
4. L

   ORE
5. L

   USC
6. W

   ASU
7. L

   STAN
8. L

   UCLA
9. L

   ORST
10. L

    ARIZ
11. L

    WSU
12. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2023

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−0.46
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.26
• Timeouts−0.30
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.67

Game by game

• TCUW 45-42 at TCU9% → 94%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• NEBW 36-14 vs NEB57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• CSUW 43-35 vs CSU89% → 92%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts −8
• OREL 6-42 at ORE5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• USCL 41-48 vs USC6% → 5%Before kickoff −44 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• ASUW 27-24 at ASU54% → 88%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• STANL 43-46 vs STAN78% → 12%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −20
• UCLAL 16-28 at UCLA15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• ORSTL 19-26 vs ORST16% → 5%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• ARIZL 31-34 vs ARIZ24% → 6%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• WSUL 14-56 at WSU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32
• UTAHL 17-23 at UTAH6% → 3%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −12, 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.