Hawai'i
- SP+
- −7.1 (#99)
- FPI
- −6.4 (#94)
- SRS
- −3.3 (#52)
- Resume
- #68
Next game
Advanced stats
CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →
Profile vs. FBS, 2020
Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.
- EPA per playExpected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
- Success rateShare of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
- ExplosivenessAverage EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
- Rushing EPAEPA per designed run.
- Passing EPAEPA per pass play.
- Standard downsSuccess rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
- Passing downsSuccess rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
- Line yardsRushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
- Stuff rateShare of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
- HavocShare of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
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.
Expected points
YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →
Drives vs. expectation, 2020
Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.
Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.
Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.
Average expected points where drives started.
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 Hawai'i 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
Bars above the line: better than expected for Hawai'i.
Players
YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →
Players, 2020
Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.
- Chevan CordeiroQB360 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 16th of 212 QBs1.11WAR0.38 to 1.86
- Calvin TurnerRB86 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 91st of 338 RBs0.32WAR0.24 to 0.39
- Miles ReedRB93 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 142nd of 338 RBs0.24WAR0.17 to 0.30
- Dae Dae HunterRB56 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 190th of 338 RBs0.17WAR0.14 to 0.20
- Jared SmartWR43 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 176th of 409 WRs0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
- Melquise StovallWR38 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 227th of 409 WRs0.07WAR0.02 to 0.10
- Rico Bussey Jr.WR40 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 316th of 409 WRs0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.07
- Adam StackPK40 plays · −0.092 pts/play · 97th of 97 kickers−0.07WAR−0.14 to 0.01
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 Hawai'i'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
Talent and roster
How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →
What it had and what it did, 2020
- Roster talent: 394, 95th of 127 in FBSRoster talent247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
- Recruiting: 132, 106th of 127 in FBSRecruitingAverage 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
- Returning production: 48%, 95th of 127 in FBSReturning productionShare of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
- SP+ rating: −7.1, 99th of 127 in FBSSP+ ratingThe result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
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
Hawai'i's SP+ of −7.1 is 0.3 points below the −6.8 its roster talent predicts, 60th of 127 in FBS.
The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.
Conversion by season
Fourth downs
YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →
Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2020
Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.
Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.
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 Hawai'i's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.21 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
- at SJSUQ2 7:19 4th & 9 at SJSU 21, up 18Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−6.6 pts
- at SJSUQ1 3:03 4th & 4 at SJSU 26, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
- at SJSUQ1 5:48 4th & 6 at SJSU 24, up 21Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
- at SJSUQ1 9:28 4th & 5 at SJSU 25, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
- vs UNMQ3 9:33 4th & 1 at HAW 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
- vs UNMQ4 6:33 4th & 3 at UNM 24, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
- at SJSUQ4 7:04 4th & 16 at HAW 41, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
- at SJSUQ1 11:36 4th & 5 at SJSU 14, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
Every call this season (72)
- Q1 9:554th & 1 at HAW 34, down 10 · PuntedClose call
- Q1 4:114th & 23 at HAW 18, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 15:004th & 14 at HAW 25, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 12:164th & 7 at WYO 27, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 10:054th & 5 at HAW 43, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 4:224th & 25 at HAW 10, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 14:504th & 18 at HAW 24, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 6:314th & 7 at HAW 47, down 17 · Went for itClose call
- Q1 4:014th & 3 at HAW 36, down 10 · PuntedClose call
- Q2 14:454th & 6 at HAW 36, down 13 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 8:184th & 1 at UNM 49, down 13 · Went for itAgreed
- Q3 9:334th & 1 at HAW 34, up 1 · Punted−1.5 pts
- Q4 6:334th & 3 at UNM 24, up 6 · Kicked a field goal−1.5 pts
- Q4 3:134th & 4 at HAW 25, up 9 · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 12:334th & 6 at HAW 46, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 10:094th & 5 at HAW 37, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 7:054th & 16 at HAW 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 3:264th & 9 at midfield, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 15:004th & 14 at HAW 21, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 10:254th & 7 at HAW 38, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 1:204th & 17 at HAW 18, down 28 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 15:004th & 9 at HAW 26, down 28 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 10:554th & 7 at SDSU 25, down 28 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q3 5:134th & 10 at SDSU 10, down 28 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q4 2:594th & 6 at HAW 47, down 24 · Went for itClose call
- Q1 12:574th & 14 at HAW 35, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 4:364th & 8 at BOIS 10, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q1 0:264th & 10 at HAW 35, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 10:094th & 3 at HAW 47, down 3 · PuntedClose call
- Q2 6:204th & 5 at HAW 32, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 5:064th & 5 at HAW 21, down 9 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 10:544th & 16 at HAW 19, down 17 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 3:384th & 3 at HAW 32, down 23 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 10:254th & 5 at BOIS 28, down 23 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 8:294th & 4 at HAW 42, down 16 · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 11:364th & 5 at SJSU 14, up 7 · PuntedClose call
- Q1 9:284th & 5 at SJSU 25, up 14 · Punted−1.7 pts
- Q1 5:484th & 6 at SJSU 24, up 21 · Punted−2.0 pts
- Q1 3:034th & 4 at SJSU 26, up 21 · Punted−2.1 pts
- Q2 7:194th & 9 at SJSU 21, up 18 · Punted−6.6 pts
- Q4 14:534th & 6 at SJSU 47, up 11 · PuntedClose call
- Q4 11:584th & 7 at SJSU 40, up 18 · PuntedClose call
- Q4 11:584th & 1 at SJSU 35, up 18 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 7:044th & 16 at HAW 41, up 18 · Went for it−1.1 pts
- Q4 2:244th & 4 at HAW 4, up 18 · Went for itClose call
- Q1 10:504th & 2 at UNLV 40, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 6:074th & 1 at HAW 15, up 7 · PuntedClose call
- Q2 11:024th & 10 at HAW 15, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 7:274th & 8 at HAW 45, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 0:424th & 1 at HAW 20, up 14 · PuntedClose call
- Q3 2:284th & 1 at UNLV 12, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 8:454th & 17 at UNLV 17, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q4 3:054th & 14 at UNLV 27, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q1 12:304th & 20 at HAW 41, tied · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 4:364th & 14 at HAW 23, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 14:424th & 14 at HAW 24, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 6:054th & 2 at HAW 45, up 21 · PuntedClose call
- Q2 1:464th & 7 at HAW 48, up 21 · PuntedClose call
- Q3 5:484th & 4 at HAW 41, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 14:544th & 1 at HOU 49, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
- Q4 11:154th & 10 at HOU 32, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q4 5:024th & 25 at HAW 10, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 2:194th & 2 at HAW 47, up 14 · PuntedClose call
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.
Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.
Costliest tries against the numbers
- vs BOISQ4 4:52 Touchdown, down 10 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.7 pts
- vs BOISQ3 11:09 Touchdown, down 10 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.1 pts
- vs BOISQ3 5:36 Touchdown, down 18 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.1 pts
Win probability
YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →
Record vs. expectation, 2020
31st of 127 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations
Expected wins adds up Hawai'i's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.
What moved it, 2020
Every game starts at Hawai'i'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+1.40
- Possession & field position+0.01
- Clock+0.05
- Timeouts−0.01
- Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.19
Game by game
- FRESW 34-19 at FRES42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
- WYOL 7-31 at WYO56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
- UNMW 39-33 vs UNM82% → 95%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
- SDSUL 10-34 at SDSU23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
- BOISL 32-40 vs BOIS17% → 5%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
- NEVW 24-21 vs NEV29% → 89%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −1
- SJSUL 24-35 at SJSU56% → 95%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +48, Possession & field position +1
- UNLVW 38-21 vs UNLV85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
- HOUW 28-14 at HOU28% → 99%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +62, Clock +3
Points of win probability, from Hawai'i's side.
Closest call
STAN 20-23 HAW (2025) - Hawai'i dropped to a 0.3% win probability before pulling it out.
Season arc, 2020
Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Hawai'i's own win-probability curve.
Biggest swings of 2020
The largest single-play change in Hawai'i's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.
Stolen wins
Hawai'i's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.
Let it slip
Hawai'i's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.
Stock & rivalries
Stock
Hawai'i's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.
Series & rivalries
Hawai'i's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.