Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0423rd
  Defense+0.1526th
• 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.
  Offense35.2%4th
  Defense43.0%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4398th
  Defense+1.3220th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0127th
  Defense+0.0557th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1127th
  Defense+0.369th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.1%1st
  Defense49.1%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%49th
  Defense29.4%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6815th
  Defense2.9741st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.9%17th
  Defense19.7%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.7%5th
  Defense15.1%41st

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   GT
2. W
   DEL
3. L
   HOU
4. W
   WYO
5. L
   BYU
6. L
   TCU
7. W
   ISU
8. L
   UTAH
9. L
   ARIZ
10. L
    WVU
11. L
    ASU
12. L
    KSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2025

1. Kaidon SalterQB269 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 73rd of 231 QBs
   1.18WAR0.64 to 1.71
2. Omarion MillerWR57 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 36th of 451 WRs
   0.26WAR0.12 to 0.38
3. Joseph WilliamsWR51 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 83rd of 451 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.29
4. Micah WelchRB94 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 161st of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Julian LewisQB95 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 187th of 231 QBs
   0.13WAR0.00 to 0.27
6. Sincere BrownWR33 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 217th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.16
7. Dallan HaydenRB74 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 249th of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Dre'lon MillerWR68 plays · +0.034 pts/play · 327th of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.10

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75575530th of 134Roster talent: 755, 30th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719749th of 134Recruiting: 197, 49th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  8%8%129th of 132Returning production: 8%, 129th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.3−8.394th of 134SP+ rating: −8.3, 94th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.11 of the 0.16 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 ISUQ4 0:00 4th & 14 at ISU 37, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
2. vs ISUQ4 5:13 4th & 3 at ISU 11, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs BYUQ3 10:17 4th & 1 at COLO 27, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs ISUQ4 9:03 4th & 2 at COLO 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at KSUQ3 2:06 4th & 3 at COLO 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at TCUQ4 2:33 4th & 10 at COLO 32, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs GTQ1 5:01 4th & 1 at COLO 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs BYUQ4 6:38 4th & 6 at COLO 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

107th of 136 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

   GT
2. W

   DEL
3. L

   HOU
4. W

   WYO
5. L

   BYU
6. L

   TCU
7. W

   ISU
8. L

   UTAH
9. L

   ARIZ
10. L

    WVU
11. L

    ASU
12. L

    KSU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.73
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.10
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.83

Game by game

• GTL 20-27 vs GT31% → 14%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• DELW 31-7 vs DEL94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• HOUL 20-36 at HOU31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• WYOW 37-20 vs WYO75% → 98%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27
• BYUL 21-24 vs BYU29% → 5%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• TCUL 21-35 at TCU14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• ISUW 24-17 vs ISU35% → 96%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts −5
• UTAHL 7-53 at UTAH16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• ARIZL 17-52 vs ARIZ34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −39
• WVUL 22-29 at WVU31% → 3%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• ASUL 17-42 vs ASU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −33
• KSUL 14-24 at KSU11% → 3%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16, 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.