Florida State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0427th
  Defense+0.0461st
• 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.
  Offense43.5%57th
  Defense40.1%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1224th
  Defense+1.2243rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0129th
  Defense+0.0263rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0726th
  Defense+0.1159th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%55th
  Defense44.2%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.9%53rd
  Defense31.9%58th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6826th
  Defense2.6972nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.5%4th
  Defense24.3%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.5%11th
  Defense18.9%79th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   ALA
2. L
   NCSU
3. W
   WAKE
4. L
   MIA
5. W
   DUKE
6. L
   LOU
7. L
   BC
8. W
   SYR
9. L
   CLEM
10. W
    DSU
11. W
    FLA
12. W
    ULM
13. W
    USM

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

Players, 2017

1. James BlackmanQB322 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 94th of 226 QBs
   0.81WAR0.21 to 1.46
2. Cam AkersRB181 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 44th of 352 RBs
   0.43WAR0.31 to 0.58
3. Jacques PatrickRB137 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 57th of 352 RBs
   0.39WAR0.29 to 0.48
4. Auden TateWR56 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 73rd of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
5. Nyqwan MurrayWR65 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 97th of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.22
6. Deondre FrancoisQB37 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 189th of 226 QBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
7. Ricky AguayoPK19 plays · +0.391 pts/play · 27th of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.21
8. Keith GavinWR41 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 327th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9259255th of 130Roster talent: 925, 5th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2902904th of 130Recruiting: 290, 4th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%70th of 128Returning production: 60%, 70th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.8+22.89th of 128SP+ rating: +22.8, 9th of 128 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, 2017

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.36 of the 0.41 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 WAKEQ4 4:58 4th & 1 at WAKE 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−12.8 pts
2. at FLAQ3 8:12 4th & 7 at FLA 15, up 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−7.1 pts
3. vs SYRQ4 1:32 4th & 1 at SYR 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.6 pts
4. at FLAQ3 13:27 4th & 12 at FLA 23, up 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.6 pts
5. at FLAQ3 3:40 4th & 4 at FLA 39, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs SYRQ3 0:54 4th & 4 at SYR 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs LOUQ3 9:35 4th & 3 at LOU 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs NCSUQ2 3:07 4th & 2 at NCSU 13, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

118th of 130 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. L

   ALA
2. L

   NCSU
3. W

   WAKE
4. L

   MIA
5. W

   DUKE
6. L

   LOU
7. L

   BC
8. W

   SYR
9. L

   CLEM
10. W

    DSU
11. W

    FLA
12. W

    ULM
13. W

    USM

What moved it, 2017

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−0.98
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.79

Game by game

• ALAL 7-24 at ALA27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• NCSUL 21-27 vs NCSU80% → 5%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• WAKEW 26-19 at WAKE69% → 85%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• MIAL 20-24 vs MIA46% → 7%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• DUKEW 17-10 at DUKE70% → 90%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +36, Clock +3
• LOUL 28-31 vs LOU70% → 13%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4
• BCL 3-35 at BC72% → 0%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −60, Timeouts +1
• SYRW 27-24 vs SYR73% → 83%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +2
• CLEML 14-31 at CLEM18% → 2%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• DSUW 77-6 vs DSU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• FLAW 38-22 at FLA61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• ULMW 42-10 vs ULM96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• USMW 42-13 vs USM84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19

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.