Florida State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1350th
  Defense+0.1054th
• 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.
  Offense41.2%29th
  Defense44.4%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3797th
  Defense+1.0697th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0333rd
  Defense−0.0169th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2257th
  Defense+0.2236th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%39th
  Defense48.3%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.6%16th
  Defense36.4%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6216th
  Defense2.8752nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.5%12th
  Defense16.9%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.1%17th
  Defense17.7%20th

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, 2019

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
   BOIS
2. W
   ULM
3. L
   UVA
4. W
   LOU
5. W
   NCSU
6. L
   CLEM
7. L
   WAKE
8. W
   SYR
9. L
   MIA
10. W
    BC
11. W
    ALST
12. L
    FLA
13. L
    ASU

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

Players, 2019

1. James BlackmanQB269 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 82nd of 228 QBs
   0.99WAR0.48 to 1.51
2. Cam AkersRB234 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 41st of 349 RBs
   0.55WAR0.36 to 0.74
3. Tamorrion TerryWR77 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 31st of 439 WRs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.38
4. Alex HornibrookQB128 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 178th of 228 QBs
   0.21WAR0.00 to 0.43
5. Ricky AguayoPK12 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 86th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
6. D.J. Matthews Jr.WR42 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 311th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
7. Tre' McKittyTE22 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 48th of 207 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Tommy MartinP50 plays · +0.037 pts/play · 70th of 100 punters
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.08

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8788786th of 130Roster talent: 878, 6th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2742746th of 130Recruiting: 274, 6th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%85th of 130Returning production: 53%, 85th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.8+1.857th of 130SP+ rating: +1.8, 57th 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, 2019

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.17 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 10:37 4th & 1 at FSU 23, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. vs LOUQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at LOU 30, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at BCQ4 12:10 4th & 6 at BC 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs BOISQ4 11:08 4th & 2 at FSU 33, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at WAKEQ3 7:07 4th & 4 at FSU 47, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at ASUQ2 0:04 4th & 2 at FSU 43, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs SYRQ3 10:29 4th & 1 at FSU 46, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs MIAQ3 1:41 4th & 3 at FSU 8, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

109th 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

   BOIS
2. W

   ULM
3. L

   UVA
4. W

   LOU
5. W

   NCSU
6. L

   CLEM
7. L

   WAKE
8. W

   SYR
9. L

   MIA
10. W

    BC
11. W

    ALST
12. L

    FLA
13. L

    ASU

What moved it, 2019

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−0.75
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.63

Game by game

• BOISL 31-36 vs BOIS73% → 5%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −55, Clock −4
• ULMW 45-44 vs ULM93% → 66%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −27: Timeouts −12, Clock +11
• UVAL 24-31 at UVA31% → 16%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +4
• LOUW 35-24 vs LOU67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• NCSUW 31-13 vs NCSU72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• CLEML 14-45 at CLEM4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• WAKEL 20-22 at WAKE57% → 14%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position −3
• SYRW 35-17 vs SYR80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24
• MIAL 10-27 vs MIA60% → 2%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• BCW 38-31 at BC49% → 96%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• ALSTW 49-12 vs ALST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• FLAL 17-40 at FLA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16, Clock +1
• ASUL 14-20 at ASU44% → 4%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −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.