Idaho

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1131st
  Defense+0.302nd
• 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.
  Offense44.2%60th
  Defense43.2%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1431st
  Defense+1.432nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1671st
  Defense+0.256th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0917th
  Defense+0.441st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%65th
  Defense49.9%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.8%42nd
  Defense30.3%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2485th
  Defense3.0330th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.8%95th
  Defense19.2%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense2.8%84th

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, 2014

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 Idaho 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
   ULM
2. L
   WMU
3. L
   OHIO
4. L
   USA
5. L
   TXST
6. L
   GASO
7. W
   NMSU
8. L
   ARST
9. L
   SDSU
10. L
    TROY
11. L
    APP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Idaho.

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Idaho'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 0.02 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. vs NMSUQ4 12:05 4th & 4 at NMSU 41, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs TROYQ1 2:26 4th & 2 at TROY 6, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs WMUQ3 5:41 4th & 11 at WMU 43, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at SDSUQ2 7:49 4th & 9 at IDHO 42, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at GASOQ3 12:26 4th & 2 at IDHO 27, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs ARSTQ3 13:19 4th & 10 at ARST 39, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs NMSUQ1 1:18 4th & 3 at IDHO 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ULMQ4 11:07 4th & 4 at IDHO 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

119th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Idaho's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 10 of 11 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   ULM
2. L

   WMU
3. L

   OHIO
4. L

   USA
5. L

   TXST
6. L

   GASO
7. W

   NMSU
8. L

   ARST
9. L

   SDSU
10. L

    TROY
11. L

    APP

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Idaho'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−2.14
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• ULML 31-38 at ULM19% → 10%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• WMUL 33-45 vs WMU51% → 3%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• OHIOL 24-36 at OHIO22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• TXSTL 30-35 at TXST16% → 7%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• GASOL 24-47 at GASO9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• NMSUW 29-17 vs NMSU62% → 98%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• ARSTL 28-44 vs ARST19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• SDSUL 21-35 at SDSU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• TROYL 17-34 vs TROY64% → 1%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• APPL 28-45 at APP16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1

Points of win probability, from Idaho's side.

Closest call

IDHO 29-23 USA (2017) - Idaho dropped to a 5.5% win probability before pulling it out.