Colorado

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense0.0075th
• 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.
  Offense40.2%28th
  Defense37.1%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2031st
  Defense+1.1770th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.134th
  Defense−0.1593rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1427th
  Defense+0.2238th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%13th
  Defense42.1%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%61st
  Defense27.9%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9434th
  Defense2.3990th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%54th
  Defense29.5%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%23rd
  Defense20.7%91st

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   GT
2. W
   WEB
3. L
   NU
4. L
   BAY
5. L
   TTU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Colorado.

Players, 2026

1. Joseph WilliamsWR41 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 8th of 364 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
2. Isaac WilsonQB71 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 128th of 192 QBs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.20
3. DeAndre Moore Jr.WR24 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 65th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
4. JaQuail SmithRB30 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. Micah WelchRB27 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 204th of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Julian LewisQB69 plays · +0.014 pts/play · 188th of 192 QBs
   0.02WAR−0.07 to 0.10
7. DeKalon TaylorRB7 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 259th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Danny ScuderoWR4 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 314th of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73273239th of 138Roster talent: 732, 39th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719754th of 138Recruiting: 197, 54th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%115th of 136Returning production: 14%, 115th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.4−2.484th of 138SP+ rating so far: −2.4, 84th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.04 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 GTQ2 7:38 4th & 5 at GT 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
2. at GTQ3 4:23 4th & 9 at GT 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at BAYQ2 12:13 4th & 2 at COLO 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at NUQ2 0:03 4th & 4 at COLO 48, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs TTUQ1 1:09 4th & 3 at TTU 11, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TTUQ4 4:46 4th & 9 at COLO 38, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at BAYQ3 2:17 4th & 4 at BAY 17, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at NUQ3 13:07 4th & 11 at NU 41, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

75th of 138 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

   GT
2. W

   WEB
3. L

   NU
4. L

   BAY
5. L

   TTU

What moved it, 2026

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−0.42
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.19

Game by game

• GTW 14-13 at GT33% → 79%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• WEBW 52-21 vs WEB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• NUL 7-41 at NU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• BAYL 13-23 at BAY26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• TTUL 7-29 vs TTU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, 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.