NC State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1567th
  Defense+0.0857th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%42nd
  Defense39.7%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3193rd
  Defense+1.2818th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1890th
  Defense+0.0268th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1239th
  Defense+0.1547th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.5%61st
  Defense45.0%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.9%31st
  Defense29.0%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1083rd
  Defense2.4491st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%58th
  Defense28.9%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.6%77th
  Defense2.2%65th

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, 2015

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 NC State 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
   TROY
2. W
   EKU
3. W
   ODU
4. W
   USA
5. L
   LOU
6. L
   VT
7. W
   WAKE
8. L
   CLEM
9. W
   BC
10. L
    FSU
11. W
    SYR
12. L
    UNC
13. L
    MSST

Bars above the line: better than expected for NC State.

Players, 2015

1. Jacoby BrissettQB387 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 44th of 205 QBs
   1.72WAR1.07 to 2.28
2. Matthew DayesRB116 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 67th of 333 RBs
   0.30WAR0.21 to 0.40
3. Jaylen Samuels?103 plays · +0.140 pts/play
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.37
4. A.J. Cole IIIP46 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 27th of 92 punters
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. JuMichael RamosWR37 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 235th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Bra'Lon CherryWR22 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 322nd of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
7. Shadrach ThorntonRB17 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 244th of 333 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
8. Johnathan AlstonCB25 plays · +0.086 pts/play
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07

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 NC State'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61061043rd of 128Roster talent: 610, 43rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20520534th of 128Recruiting: 205, 34th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%27th of 127Returning production: 82%, 27th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.6+9.641st of 128SP+ rating: +9.6, 41st 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, 2015

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 NC State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.08 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 LOUQ2 0:04 4th & 10 at NCSU 19, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
2. at BCQ3 10:53 4th & 2 at BC 49, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at WAKEQ4 7:42 4th & 1 at NCSU 45, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at ODUQ4 10:49 4th & 5 at ODU 34, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs LOUQ2 15:00 4th & 10 at LOU 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at FSUQ4 14:09 4th & 6 at NCSU 37, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs UNCQ3 11:35 4th & 7 at UNC 40, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs CLEMQ4 3:13 4th & 9 at CLEM 9, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

102nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up NC State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   TROY
2. W

   EKU
3. W

   ODU
4. W

   USA
5. L

   LOU
6. L

   VT
7. W

   WAKE
8. L

   CLEM
9. W

   BC
10. L

    FSU
11. W

    SYR
12. L

    UNC
13. L

    MSST

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at NC State'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−0.93
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• TROYW 49-21 vs TROY94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• EKUW 35-0 vs EKU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• ODUW 38-14 at ODU89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19
• USAW 63-13 at USA90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• LOUL 13-20 vs LOU68% → 5%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• VTL 13-28 at VT44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• WAKEW 35-17 at WAKE77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• CLEML 41-56 vs CLEM24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• BCW 24-8 at BC62% → 98%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Clock +1
• FSUL 17-34 at FSU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position +3
• SYRW 42-29 vs SYR89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16
• UNCL 34-45 vs UNC34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• MSSTL 28-51 at MSST32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1

Points of win probability, from NC State's side.

Closest call

NCSU 30-29 PITT (2020) - NC State dropped to a 4.9% win probability before pulling it out.