Fresno State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0624th
  Defense+0.0186th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%19th
  Defense40.3%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3277th
  Defense+1.1291st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0426th
  Defense+0.0276th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1234th
  Defense+0.0186th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%18th
  Defense45.5%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.8%23rd
  Defense28.5%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7314th
  Defense2.9456th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%36th
  Defense17.7%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.9%77th
  Defense14.5%29th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   MICH
2. W
   SAC
3. W
   NMSU
4. W
   UNM
5. L
   UNLV
6. L
   WSU
7. W
   NEV
8. W
   SJSU
9. L
   HAW
10. L
    AF
11. W
    CSU
12. L
    UCLA
13. L
    NIU

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

Players, 2024

1. Mikey KeeneQB339 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 89th of 232 QBs
   1.03WAR0.50 to 1.59
2. Joshua WoodQB47 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 170th of 232 QBs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.33
3. Elijah GilliamRB95 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 131st of 373 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.29
4. Bryson DonelsonRB74 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 181st of 373 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
5. Mac DalenaWR50 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 76th of 452 WRs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.28
6. Jalen MossWR35 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 82nd of 452 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.23
7. Raylen SharpeWR36 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 129th of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
8. Malik SherrodRB45 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 248th of 373 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56856889th of 131Roster talent: 568, 89th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16116176th of 131Recruiting: 161, 76th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%24th of 130Returning production: 68%, 24th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.8−3.883rd of 131SP+ rating: −3.8, 83rd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.17 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 NEVQ4 0:11 4th & 9 at NEV 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.4 pts
2. vs WSUQ4 4:53 4th & 4 at FRES 7, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at UCLAQ4 8:01 4th & 2 at FRES 28, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at NEVQ3 13:04 4th & 2 at FRES 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs NIUQ3 4:56 4th & 2 at FRES 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at UCLAQ2 0:14 4th & 4 at UCLA 38, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at NEVQ4 11:49 4th & 6 at NEV 6, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UCLAQ3 8:37 4th & 3 at FRES 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

124th of 134 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

   MICH
2. W

   SAC
3. W

   NMSU
4. W

   UNM
5. L

   UNLV
6. L

   WSU
7. W

   NEV
8. W

   SJSU
9. L

   HAW
10. L

    AF
11. W

    CSU
12. L

    UCLA
13. L

    NIU

What moved it, 2024

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−1.30
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.05
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.57

Game by game

• MICHL 10-30 at MICH9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15
• SACW 46-30 vs SAC91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts −1
• NMSUW 48-0 vs NMSU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• UNMW 38-21 at UNM87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• UNLVL 14-59 at UNLV47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts +1
• WSUL 17-25 vs WSU46% → 7%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45, Possession & field position −2
• NEVW 24-21 at NEV62% → 85%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• SJSUW 33-10 vs SJSU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −2
• HAWL 20-21 vs HAW78% → 20%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• AFL 28-36 at AF82% → 2%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −60, Timeouts +11
• CSUW 28-22 vs CSU60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −3
• UCLAL 13-20 at UCLA32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +2
• NIUL 20-28 vs NIU44% → 10%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −16

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.