Florida State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.2488th
  Defense+0.0669th
• 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.
  Offense48.7%91st
  Defense38.3%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2571st
  Defense+1.3013th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1990th
  Defense+0.0557th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3185th
  Defense+0.1068th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.5%80th
  Defense42.9%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense42.7%96th
  Defense30.1%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9245th
  Defense2.7470th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%29th
  Defense21.5%68th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%19th
  Defense18.6%78th

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, 2016

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
   MISS
2. W
   CHSO
3. L
   LOU
4. W
   USF
5. L
   UNC
6. W
   MIA
7. W
   WAKE
8. L
   CLEM
9. W
   NCSU
10. W
    BC
11. W
    SYR
12. W
    FLA
13. W
    MICH

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

Players, 2016

1. Deondre FrancoisQB428 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 27th of 218 QBs
   1.88WAR1.10 to 2.60
2. Dalvin CookRB272 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 3rd of 347 RBs
   1.01WAR0.73 to 1.31
3. Travis RudolphWR80 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 86th of 417 WRs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.30
4. Kermit WhitfieldWR51 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 101st of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
5. Ricky AguayoPK22 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 47th of 116 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Nyqwan MurrayWR40 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 194th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Auden TateWR33 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 252nd of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Jacques PatrickRB25 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 246th of 347 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 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 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9079074th of 128Roster talent: 907, 4th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2902903rd of 128Recruiting: 290, 3rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%38th of 128Returning production: 77%, 38th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.0+24.07th of 128SP+ rating: +24.0, 7th 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, 2016

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.15 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 MICHQ2 14:06 4th & 1 at MICH 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at MIAQ4 9:02 4th & 2 at MIA 15, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs MISSQ4 4:53 4th & 1 at MISS 13, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at NCSUQ4 8:04 4th & 2 at FSU 27, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at NCSUQ3 7:44 4th & 5 at NCSU 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs CLEMQ3 12:03 4th & 2 at FSU 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs BCQ2 9:12 4th & 1 at BC 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs MISSQ2 4:49 4th & 4 at MISS 4, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

37th 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

   MISS
2. W

   CHSO
3. L

   LOU
4. W

   USF
5. L

   UNC
6. W

   MIA
7. W

   WAKE
8. L

   CLEM
9. W

   NCSU
10. W

    BC
11. W

    SYR
12. W

    FLA
13. W

    MICH

What moved it, 2016

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+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.51

Game by game

• MISSW 45-34 vs MISS64% → 98%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Possession & field position +1
• CHSOW 52-8 vs CHSO100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0
• LOUL 20-63 at LOU61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −54
• USFW 55-35 at USF67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +37, Clock +3
• UNCL 35-37 vs UNC83% → 5%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• MIAW 20-19 at MIA46% → 81%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +39, Clock +4
• WAKEW 17-6 vs WAKE95% → 96%Before kickoff +45 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position −1
• CLEML 34-37 vs CLEM40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• NCSUW 24-20 at NCSU74% → 94%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• BCW 45-7 vs BC94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• SYRW 45-14 at SYR91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• FLAW 31-13 vs FLA70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −1
• MICHW 33-32 vs MICH36% → 92%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2

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.