Florida State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2894th
  Defense+0.0953rd
• 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.
  Offense48.9%92nd
  Defense41.5%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3689th
  Defense+1.1773rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2495th
  Defense+0.1227th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3381st
  Defense+0.1082nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.9%87th
  Defense48.3%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.3%95th
  Defense28.0%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3385th
  Defense3.2721st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.6%56th
  Defense15.1%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%64th
  Defense16.6%56th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   DUQ
2. W
   LSU
3. W
   LOU
4. W
   BC
5. L
   WAKE
6. L
   NCSU
7. L
   CLEM
8. W
   GT
9. W
   MIA
10. W
    SYR
11. W
    UL
12. W
    FLA
13. W
    OU

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

Players, 2022

1. Jordan TravisQB339 plays · +0.367 pts/play · 13th of 234 QBs
   2.33WAR1.54 to 3.11
2. Trey BensonRB114 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 81st of 384 RBs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.43
3. Treshaun WardRB73 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 134th of 384 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.29
4. Johnny WilsonWR69 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 85th of 455 WRs
   0.17WAR0.04 to 0.35
5. Lawrance ToafiliRB91 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 206th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.23
6. Mycah PittmanWR36 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Camren McDonaldTE22 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 70th of 214 TEs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
8. Alex MastromannoP28 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 64th of 102 punters
   0.05WAR0.01 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  78178118th of 129Roster talent: 781, 18th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23223218th of 129Recruiting: 232, 18th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%31st of 128Returning production: 74%, 31st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.2+13.223rd of 129SP+ rating: +13.2, 23rd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 LSUQ4 2:15 4th & 5 at FSU 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at MIAQ2 7:34 4th & 7 at MIA 39, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. vs CLEMQ3 12:31 4th & 5 at FSU 30, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at NCSUQ2 7:55 4th & 20 at NCSU 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs LSUQ2 3:15 4th & 4 at FSU 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at NCSUQ2 10:08 4th & 20 at NCSU 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at LOUQ1 3:40 4th & 3 at LOU 19, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs BCQ2 14:55 4th & 3 at BC 12, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

33rd of 131 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

   DUQ
2. W

   LSU
3. W

   LOU
4. W

   BC
5. L

   WAKE
6. L

   NCSU
7. L

   CLEM
8. W

   GT
9. W

   MIA
10. W

    SYR
11. W

    UL
12. W

    FLA
13. W

    OU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.16
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• DUQW 47-7 vs DUQ99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• LSUW 24-23 vs LSU40% → 6%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• LOUW 35-31 at LOU59% → 94%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• BCW 44-14 vs BC89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• WAKEL 21-31 vs WAKE69% → 4%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• NCSUL 17-19 at NCSU44% → 5%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −3
• CLEML 28-34 vs CLEM38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• GTW 41-16 vs GT94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9, Clock +1
• MIAW 45-3 at MIA66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• SYRW 38-3 at SYR71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position −1
• ULW 49-17 vs UL96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• FLAW 45-38 vs FLA78% → 97%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• OUW 35-32 vs OU79% → 89%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +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.