Fresno State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1871st
  Defense+0.1733rd
• 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.
  Offense44.9%69th
  Defense37.2%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3375th
  Defense+1.482nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0748th
  Defense+0.256th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2767th
  Defense+0.0878th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.6%63rd
  Defense41.5%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.0%83rd
  Defense29.4%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7432nd
  Defense3.0137th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%25th
  Defense18.1%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%64th
  Defense18.2%73rd

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   HAW
2. W
   CSU
3. W
   UNLV
4. W
   USU
5. L
   NEV
6. L
   UNM

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

Players, 2020

1. Jake HaenerQB257 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 54th of 212 QBs
   0.63WAR0.13 to 1.12
2. Ronnie RiversRB125 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 49th of 338 RBs
   0.42WAR0.32 to 0.52
3. Jalen Moreno-CropperWR52 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 70th of 409 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
4. Keric WheatfallWR29 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 161st of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
5. Josh KellyWR35 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 246th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
6. Jordan MimsRB7 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 300th of 338 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02
7. Zane PopeWR6 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 371st of 409 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Cesar SilvaPK4 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 88th of 97 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44044087th of 127Roster talent: 440, 87th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14114188th of 127Recruiting: 141, 88th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%96th of 127Returning production: 47%, 96th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.5−5.591st of 127SP+ rating: −5.5, 91st of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.04 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 USUQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at FRES 10, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. at NEVQ4 8:42 4th & 13 at NEV 35, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
3. at USUQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at USU 49, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs HAWQ2 5:09 4th & 16 at HAW 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at NEVQ4 5:32 4th & 11 at NEV 49, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs HAWQ4 10:13 4th & 4 at HAW 7, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs HAWQ4 2:58 4th & 2 at HAW 13, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at NEVQ1 6:16 4th & 7 at NEV 48, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

91st of 127 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

   HAW
2. W

   CSU
3. W

   UNLV
4. W

   USU
5. L

   NEV
6. L

   UNM

What moved it, 2020

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−0.14
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.40

Game by game

• HAWL 19-34 vs HAW58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• CSUW 38-17 vs CSU41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +52, Timeouts −1
• UNLVW 40-27 at UNLV72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• USUW 35-16 at USU80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• NEVL 26-37 at NEV30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• UNML 39-49 at UNM82% → 4%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2

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.