Fresno State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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.
  Offense0.009th
  Defense+0.1724th
• 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.
  Offense36.3%2nd
  Defense48.2%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1631st
  Defense+0.9899th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.074th
  Defense+0.1622nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0729th
  Defense+0.2424th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.1%1st
  Defense54.0%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%26th
  Defense32.9%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.372nd
  Defense3.425th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.3%2nd
  Defense14.3%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%22nd
  Defense12.1%4th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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 Fresno 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
   NEB
2. W
   SAC
3. L
   TOL
4. L
   TLSA
5. L
   UNLV
6. L
   NEV
7. L
   SDSU
8. L
   USU
9. L
   AF
10. L
    CSU
11. L
    HAW
12. L
    SJSU

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

Players, 2016

1. Chason VirgilQB320 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 85th of 218 QBs
   0.96WAR0.43 to 1.39
2. Dontel JamesRB196 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 87th of 347 RBs
   0.37WAR0.20 to 0.54
3. Blake CusickP67 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 18th of 82 punters
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.31
4. Aaron PeckWR57 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 95th of 417 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.24
5. Zach KlineQB88 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 171st of 218 QBs
   0.17WAR0.00 to 0.32
6. Kody KroeningPK15 plays · +0.494 pts/play · 31st of 116 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
7. KeeSean JohnsonWR83 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 184th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.24
8. Jamire JordanWR76 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 209th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.19

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 Fresno 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40540593rd of 128Roster talent: 405, 93rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13913979th of 128Recruiting: 139, 79th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%54th of 128Returning production: 71%, 54th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.9−16.9122nd of 128SP+ rating: −16.9, 122nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 Fresno State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 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. at USUQ3 2:17 4th & 3 at FRES 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
2. vs SACQ2 5:54 4th & 11 at SAC 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs TLSAQ4 13:30 4th & 3 at FRES 36, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at USUQ4 7:08 4th & 20 at FRES 39, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs SACQ2 7:21 4th & 4 at SAC 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at CSUQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at FRES 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs SDSUQ2 9:06 4th & 1 at FRES 32, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs SDSUQ3 9:54 4th & 3 at SDSU 22, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

117th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Fresno State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   NEB
2. W

   SAC
3. L

   TOL
4. L

   TLSA
5. L

   UNLV
6. L

   NEV
7. L

   SDSU
8. L

   USU
9. L

   AF
10. L

    CSU
11. L

    HAW
12. L

    SJSU

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Fresno 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−2.33
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.09

Game by game

• NEBL 10-43 at NEB3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• SACW 31-3 vs SAC69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33
• TOLL 17-52 at TOL10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• TLSAL 41-48 vs TLSA22% → 15%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −13
• UNLVL 20-45 at UNLV23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +1
• NEVL 22-27 at NEV21% → 6%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• SDSUL 3-17 vs SDSU13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• USUL 20-38 at USU17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• AFL 21-31 vs AF20% → 3%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• CSUL 0-37 at CSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• HAWL 13-14 vs HAW41% → 26%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −33, Clock −4
• SJSUL 14-16 vs SJSU40% → 6%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Fresno State's side.

Closest call

FRES 39-35 PUR (2023) - Fresno State dropped to a 1.5% win probability before pulling it out.