Hawai'i

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0730th
  Defense+0.1723rd
• 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.
  Offense41.0%39th
  Defense43.2%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3277th
  Defense+1.3126th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0014th
  Defense+0.1040th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1835th
  Defense+0.3511th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%30th
  Defense48.7%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%52nd
  Defense31.0%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7711th
  Defense3.1636th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%6th
  Defense17.6%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%27th
  Defense16.3%50th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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

1. L
   VAN
2. L
   STAN
3. W
   UALB
4. L
   ORE
5. W
   NMSU
6. L
   UNLV
7. L
   SDSU
8. L
   UNM
9. L
   SJSU
10. W
    NEV
11. W
    AF
12. L
    WYO
13. W
    CSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Hawai'i.

Players, 2023

1. Brayden SchagerQB400 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 80th of 250 QBs
   1.15WAR0.41 to 1.89
2. Steven McBrideWR48 plays · +0.365 pts/play · 15th of 457 WRs
   0.33WAR0.22 to 0.42
3. Pofele AshlockWR69 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 36th of 457 WRs
   0.25WAR0.07 to 0.41
4. Matthew ShipleyPK53 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 3rd of 113 kickers
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.30
5. Landon SimsRB55 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 240th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Koali NishigayaWR25 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 286th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08
7. Tylan HinesRB24 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 301st of 383 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Jonah PanokeWR12 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 338th of 457 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 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 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

What it had and what it did, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  408408110th of 130Roster talent: 408, 110th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  103103121st of 130Recruiting: 103, 121st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%46th of 128Returning production: 63%, 46th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.4−16.4120th of 130SP+ rating: −16.4, 120th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2023

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.14 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 NEVQ3 12:14 4th & 1 at HAW 20, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs SDSUQ3 8:34 4th & 2 at SDSU 29, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at NEVQ4 4:43 4th & 1 at HAW 18, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs CSUQ2 0:03 4th & 2 at CSU 26, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at NEVQ3 7:33 4th & 5 at NEV 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs AFQ4 14:12 4th & 5 at AF 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at NEVQ4 12:41 4th & 6 at NEV 33, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs NMSUQ1 5:21 4th & 1 at HAW 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

41st of 133 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.

1. L

   VAN
2. L

   STAN
3. W

   UALB
4. L

   ORE
5. W

   NMSU
6. L

   UNLV
7. L

   SDSU
8. L

   UNM
9. L

   SJSU
10. W

    NEV
11. W

    AF
12. L

    WYO
13. W

    CSU

What moved it, 2023

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−0.13
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.01
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.01

Game by game

• VANL 28-35 at VAN12% → 38%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +26: Clock +2, Timeouts −2
• STANL 24-37 vs STAN38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• UALBW 31-20 vs UALB78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• OREL 10-55 at ORE1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• NMSUW 20-17 vs NMSU57% → 95%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• UNLVL 20-44 at UNLV27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Clock +1
• SDSUL 34-41 vs SDSU32% → 4%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• UNML 21-42 at UNM61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −52, Timeouts −2
• SJSUL 0-35 vs SJSU24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• NEVW 27-14 at NEV46% → 96%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Possession & field position +2
• AFW 27-13 vs AF11% → 99%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +56, Possession & field position +1
• WYOL 9-42 at WYO18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21
• CSUW 27-24 vs CSU30% → 96%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position +1

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.