Idaho

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0113th
  Defense+0.0758th
• 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.
  Offense38.9%10th
  Defense42.3%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1841st
  Defense+1.1663rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0512th
  Defense+0.0746th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0626th
  Defense+0.0964th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%13th
  Defense46.7%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.7%29th
  Defense33.5%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7332nd
  Defense2.7860th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%12th
  Defense24.2%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.1%7th
  Defense16.8%54th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   SAC
2. L
   UNLV
3. L
   WMU
4. W
   USA
5. L
   UL
6. L
   APP
7. L
   MIZ
8. W
   ULM
9. L
   TROY
10. L
    CCU
11. L
    NMSU
12. W
    GAST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Idaho.

What it had and what it did, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  185185126th of 130Roster talent: 185, 126th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9090126th of 130Recruiting: 90, 126th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%74th of 128Returning production: 59%, 74th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.4−12.4107th of 128SP+ rating: −12.4, 107th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.17 of the 0.20 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 ULQ4 10:13 4th & 1 at IDHO 36, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
2. vs APPQ4 2:33 4th & 24 at IDHO 32, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.5 pts
3. at GASTQ3 11:52 4th & 18 at GAST 25, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.7 pts
4. at USAQ2 2:25 4th & 1 at IDHO 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at GASTQ4 5:08 4th & 3 at GAST 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at GASTQ2 5:11 4th & 4 at GAST 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at GASTQ3 5:21 4th & 2 at IDHO 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs CCUQ2 6:50 4th & 3 at IDHO 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

94th of 130 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.

1. W

   SAC
2. L

   UNLV
3. L

   WMU
4. W

   USA
5. L

   UL
6. L

   APP
7. L

   MIZ
8. W

   ULM
9. L

   TROY
10. L

    CCU
11. L

    NMSU
12. W

    GAST

What moved it, 2017

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−1.07
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.23
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• SACW 28-6 vs SAC94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• UNLVL 16-44 vs UNLV61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −61, Possession & field position +1
• WMUL 28-37 at WMU15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• USAW 29-23 at USA34% → 90%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +19
• ULL 16-21 vs UL73% → 7%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• APPL 20-23 vs APP22% → 7%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• MIZL 21-68 at MIZ14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• ULMW 31-23 vs ULM53% → 97%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• TROYL 21-24 at TROY10% → 5%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −16
• CCUL 7-13 vs CCU68% → 10%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• NMSUL 10-17 at NMSU23% → 7%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position −1
• GASTW 24-10 at GAST30% → 97%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +61, Clock +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.