Florida State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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−0.019th
  Defense+0.0278th
• 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.
  Offense34.6%3rd
  Defense40.6%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3491st
  Defense+1.1864th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.171st
  Defense−0.0181st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1338th
  Defense+0.0871st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.0%2nd
  Defense45.4%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.5%8th
  Defense31.3%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.151st
  Defense2.7471st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.7%3rd
  Defense21.3%68th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.4%5th
  Defense16.1%50th

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, 2018

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
   VT
2. W
   SAM
3. L
   SYR
4. W
   NIU
5. W
   LOU
6. L
   MIA
7. W
   WAKE
8. L
   CLEM
9. L
   NCSU
10. L
    ND
11. W
    BC
12. L
    FLA

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

Players, 2018

1. Deondre FrancoisQB321 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 93rd of 225 QBs
   0.88WAR0.37 to 1.43
2. Cam AkersRB142 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 119th of 351 RBs
   0.34WAR0.22 to 0.46
3. Jacques PatrickRB85 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 160th of 351 RBs
   0.27WAR0.21 to 0.33
4. Nyqwan MurrayWR50 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 138th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
5. Tamorrion TerryWR41 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Ricky AguayoPK12 plays · +0.442 pts/play · 57th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. James BlackmanQB25 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 207th of 225 QBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. D.J. Matthews Jr.WR38 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 336th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8898897th of 130Roster talent: 889, 7th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2852855th of 130Recruiting: 285, 5th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%65th of 129Returning production: 64%, 65th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.4+1.471st of 130SP+ rating: +1.4, 71st of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.10 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 LOUQ3 13:00 4th & 1 at FSU 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at NCSUQ3 7:09 4th & 1 at FSU 28, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at MIAQ2 9:43 4th & 1 at FSU 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at SYRQ2 13:10 4th & 1 at FSU 13, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs FLAQ2 13:34 4th & 1 at FSU 18, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs NIUQ3 4:27 4th & 3 at NIU 25, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs FLAQ3 4:44 4th & 13 at FLA 36, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs FLAQ4 12:49 4th & 9 at FLA 26, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

110th 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

   VT
2. W

   SAM
3. L

   SYR
4. W

   NIU
5. W

   LOU
6. L

   MIA
7. W

   WAKE
8. L

   CLEM
9. L

   NCSU
10. L

    ND
11. W

    BC
12. L

    FLA

What moved it, 2018

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−1.26
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.06

Game by game

• VTL 3-24 vs VT70% → 0%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3
• SAMW 36-26 vs SAM98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +6
• SYRL 7-30 at SYR64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −55, Clock +1
• NIUW 37-19 vs NIU80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• LOUW 28-24 at LOU72% → 95%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• MIAL 27-28 at MIA17% → 7%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −2
• WAKEW 38-17 vs WAKE81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23
• CLEML 10-59 vs CLEM11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• NCSUL 28-47 at NCSU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Clock +1
• NDL 13-42 at ND13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −17
• BCW 22-21 vs BC47% → 81%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• FLAL 14-41 vs FLA30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36

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.