Idaho

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0627th
  Defense+0.0957th
• 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.
  Offense45.2%67th
  Defense45.3%32nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+0.991st
  Defense+1.1281st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0019th
  Defense+0.0462nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1957th
  Defense+0.2135th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%61st
  Defense51.8%15th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.2%72nd
  Defense32.3%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8939th
  Defense3.0046th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%74th
  Defense18.8%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%83rd
  Defense16.1%48th

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, 2016

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. W
   MTST
2. L
   WASH
3. L
   WSU
4. W
   UNLV
5. L
   TROY
6. W
   ULM
7. W
   NMSU
8. L
   APP
9. W
   UL
10. W
    TXST
11. W
    USA
12. W
    GAST
13. W
    CSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Idaho.

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  257257126th of 128Roster talent: 257, 126th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9393125th of 128Recruiting: 93, 125th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%68th of 128Returning production: 65%, 68th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.6−8.698th of 128SP+ rating: −8.6, 98th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.19 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 ULQ3 4:29 4th & 2 at UL 33, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at ULQ4 7:22 4th & 2 at UL 27, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at ULQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at UL 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at ULQ4 2:33 4th & 5 at UL 33, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at UNLVQ4 5:05 4th & 4 at IDHO 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at WSUQ3 8:47 4th & 1 at WSU 1, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. at ULMQ4 11:54 4th & 2 at IDHO 26, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs GASTQ3 10:05 4th & 2 at GAST 27, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

1st 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 11 of 13 games; 2 have no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   MTST
2. L

   WASH
3. L

   WSU
4. W

   UNLV
5. L

   TROY
6. W

   ULM
7. W

   NMSU
8. L

   APP
9. W

   UL
10. W

    TXST
11. W

    USA
12. W

    GAST
13. W

    CSU

What moved it, 2016

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+3.28
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.40

Game by game

• MTSTW 20-17 vs MTST71% → 95%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• WASHL 14-59 at WASH2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• WSUL 6-56 at WSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −5
• UNLVW 33-30 at UNLV18% → 89%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +19
• ULMW 34-31 at ULM38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• APPL 19-37 at APP7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• ULW 23-13 at UL29% → 97%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• TXSTW 47-14 at TXST71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• USAW 38-31 vs USA55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• GASTW 37-12 vs GAST70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −2
• CSUW 61-50 at CSU18% → 98%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +60, Clock +4

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.