Florida State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2478th
  Defense+0.258th
• 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.
  Offense45.0%61st
  Defense44.5%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4193rd
  Defense+1.3322nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2996th
  Defense+0.2112th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2758th
  Defense+0.3221st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%37th
  Defense51.7%15th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.8%87th
  Defense30.3%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4584th
  Defense3.2219th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.5%83rd
  Defense16.8%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.8%46th
  Defense15.9%51st

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   NMSU
2. L
   SMU
3. L
   ALA
4. W
   CARK
5. W
   UVA
6. L
   LOU

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

Players, 2026

1. Ashton DanielsQB159 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 15th of 192 QBs
   0.51WAR0.25 to 0.74
2. Ousmane KromahRB84 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 14th of 320 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
3. Duce RobinsonWR27 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 65th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
4. Micahi DanzyWR22 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 121st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
5. Samuel Singleton Jr.RB27 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
6. Quintrevion WisnerRB21 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 221st of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05
7. Jayvan BoggsWR17 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Daniel HughesP15 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 19th of 84 punters
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80080021st of 138Roster talent: 800, 21st of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25125117th of 138Recruiting: 251, 17th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%66th of 136Returning production: 40%, 66th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.8+5.853rd of 138SP+ rating so far: +5.8, 53rd of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.06 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 UVAQ3 4:26 4th & 1 at FSU 17, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at LOUQ3 11:58 4th & 1 at FSU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at LOUQ3 4:25 4th & 15 at LOU 35, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at LOUQ2 0:37 4th & 12 at LOU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs SMUQ2 0:31 4th & 3 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at LOUQ4 11:26 4th & 7 at FSU 24, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at LOUQ3 0:40 4th & 4 at FSU 37, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs UVAQ1 4:05 4th & 3 at FSU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

94th of 138 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

   NMSU
2. L

   SMU
3. L

   ALA
4. W

   CARK
5. W

   UVA
6. L

   LOU

What moved it, 2026

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−0.41
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.17

Game by game

• NMSUW 34-17 vs NMSU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• SMUL 24-27 vs SMU41% → 14%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −4
• ALAL 36-50 at ALA11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• CARKW 34-7 vs CARK100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• UVAW 38-7 vs UVA54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +1
• LOUL 20-44 at LOU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −40, Clock +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.