Florida State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1775th
  Defense+0.0277th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%68th
  Defense38.0%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2676th
  Defense+1.1373rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0958th
  Defense+0.0364th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3180th
  Defense+0.0381st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.8%42nd
  Defense41.6%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.0%92nd
  Defense31.3%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8446th
  Defense3.0226th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.5%8th
  Defense17.3%21st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.8%1st
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Florida State 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
   TXST
2. W
   USF
3. W
   BC
4. W
   WAKE
5. W
   MIA
6. W
   LOU
7. L
   GT
8. W
   SYR
9. L
   CLEM
10. W
    NCSU
11. W
    UTC
12. W
    FLA
13. L
    HOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida State.

Players, 2015

1. Everett GolsonQB215 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 83rd of 205 QBs
   1.12WAR0.81 to 1.45
2. Sean MaguireQB150 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 112th of 205 QBs
   0.67WAR0.43 to 0.91
3. Dalvin CookRB193 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 21st of 333 RBs
   0.48WAR0.28 to 0.66
4. Kermit WhitfieldWR57 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 43rd of 411 WRs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.32
5. Roberto AguayoPK21 plays · +0.509 pts/play · 8th of 115 kickers
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.26
6. Travis RudolphWR70 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 87th of 411 WRs
   0.20WAR0.09 to 0.30
7. Jesus WilsonWR71 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 167th of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.22
8. Cason BeattyP49 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 73rd of 92 punters
   0.04WAR−0.06 to 0.12

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 Florida State'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8908904th of 128Roster talent: 890, 4th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2872875th of 128Recruiting: 287, 5th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%117th of 127Returning production: 31%, 117th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.2+23.25th of 128SP+ rating: +23.2, 5th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Florida State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.27 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 FLAQ2 1:45 4th & 3 at FLA 25, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at FLAQ2 5:26 4th & 10 at FLA 25, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
3. at CLEMQ3 6:15 4th & 1 at CLEM 24, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at FLAQ3 5:21 4th & 2 at FLA 34, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
5. at CLEMQ3 12:23 4th & 1 at FSU 31, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs HOUQ2 1:51 4th & 1 at FSU 35, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
7. vs LOUQ2 1:01 4th & 4 at LOU 40, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs MIAQ4 2:45 4th & 5 at midfield, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

59th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Florida State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   TXST
2. W

   USF
3. W

   BC
4. W

   WAKE
5. W

   MIA
6. W

   LOU
7. L

   GT
8. W

   SYR
9. L

   CLEM
10. W

    NCSU
11. W

    UTC
12. W

    FLA
13. L

    HOU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Florida State'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
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.79

Game by game

• TXSTW 59-16 vs TXST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• USFW 34-14 vs USF97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• BCW 14-0 at BC80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +29, Clock +2
• WAKEW 24-16 at WAKE89% → 96%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• MIAW 29-24 vs MIA72% → 96%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• LOUW 41-21 vs LOU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• GTL 16-22 at GT71% → 11%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• SYRW 45-21 vs SYR91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• CLEML 13-23 at CLEM18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• NCSUW 34-17 vs NCSU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position −3
• UTCW 52-13 vs UTC98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• FLAW 27-2 at FLA44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +58
• HOUL 24-38 vs HOU71% → 2%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Florida State's side.

Closest call

LSU 23-24 FSU (2022) - Florida State dropped to a 4.0% win probability before pulling it out.