Florida State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2182nd
  Defense+0.1047th
• 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.
  Offense45.9%77th
  Defense42.1%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3590th
  Defense+1.1685th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2192nd
  Defense+0.0940th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2261st
  Defense+0.1458th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%63rd
  Defense47.2%46th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.9%93rd
  Defense30.1%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4096th
  Defense3.1222nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.9%97th
  Defense15.2%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%60th
  Defense15.5%47th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   ALA
2. W
   ETAM
3. W
   KENT
4. L
   UVA
5. L
   MIA
6. L
   PITT
7. L
   STAN
8. W
   WAKE
9. L
   CLEM
10. W
    VT
11. L
    NCSU
12. L
    FLA

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

Players, 2025

1. Tommy CastellanosQB336 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 72nd of 231 QBs
   1.18WAR0.51 to 1.76
2. Duce RobinsonWR71 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 16th of 451 WRs
   0.33WAR0.15 to 0.47
3. Gavin SawchukRB91 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 181st of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
4. Ousmane KromahRB61 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 215th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
5. Lawayne McCoyWR31 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 202nd of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Micahi DanzyWR40 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 251st of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Jake WeinbergPK15 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 91st of 112 kickers
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09
8. Randy PittmanTE30 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 103rd of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.01 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  82882819th of 134Roster talent: 828, 19th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24624617th of 134Recruiting: 246, 17th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%114th of 132Returning production: 13%, 114th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.2+7.241st of 134SP+ rating: +7.2, 41st of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.07 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 ALAQ3 3:16 4th & 4 at ALA 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at FLAQ2 2:00 4th & 17 at FSU 46, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
3. at NCSUQ4 1:16 4th & 4 at NCSU 33, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at CLEMQ1 0:16 4th & 3 at midfield, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs MIAQ4 4:11 4th & 8 at MIA 26, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at NCSUQ2 0:43 4th & 4 at NCSU 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at CLEMQ4 2:51 4th & 14 at CLEM 36, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs MIAQ4 6:18 4th & 5 at FSU 34, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

132nd of 136 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

   ALA
2. W

   ETAM
3. W

   KENT
4. L

   UVA
5. L

   MIA
6. L

   PITT
7. L

   STAN
8. W

   WAKE
9. L

   CLEM
10. W

    VT
11. L

    NCSU
12. L

    FLA

What moved it, 2025

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−1.78
• Clock−0.12
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.73

Game by game

• ALAW 31-17 vs ALA16% → 99%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +2
• ETAMW 77-3 vs ETAM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• KENTW 66-10 vs KENT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• UVAL 38-46 at UVA69% → 5%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −35, Clock −3
• MIAL 22-28 vs MIA42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• PITTL 31-34 vs PITT75% → 5%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• STANL 13-20 at STAN88% → 23%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts +4
• WAKEW 42-7 vs WAKE81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• CLEML 10-24 at CLEM40% → 2%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• VTW 34-14 vs VT82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• NCSUL 11-21 at NCSU64% → 4%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• FLAL 21-40 at FLA47% → 1%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1

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.