NC State

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+0.1046th
  Defense0.0087th
• 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.
  Offense43.3%46th
  Defense38.3%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2257th
  Defense+1.1852nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0214th
  Defense−0.0791st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2470th
  Defense+0.0779th
• 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%28th
  Defense41.5%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.9%81st
  Defense33.3%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7828th
  Defense2.3894th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%57th
  Defense23.5%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%70th
  Defense18.9%80th

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 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
   W&M
2. L
   ECU
3. W
   ODU
4. W
   WAKE
5. W
   ND
6. L
   CLEM
7. L
   LOU
8. L
   BC
9. L
   FSU
10. W
    SYR
11. L
    MIA
12. W
    UNC
13. W
    VAN

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

Players, 2016

1. Ryan FinleyQB396 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 34th of 218 QBs
   1.75WAR1.08 to 2.46
2. Matthew DayesRB256 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 29th of 347 RBs
   0.64WAR0.35 to 0.93
3. Jaylen Samuels?87 plays · +0.137 pts/play
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.32
4. Stephen LouisWR55 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 76th of 417 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
5. A.J. Cole IIIP43 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 39th of 82 punters
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.23
6. Bra'Lon CherryWR43 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 178th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Reggie Gallaspy IIRB37 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 238th of 347 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
8. Nyheim HinesRB61 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 253rd of 347 RBs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.17

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61661644th of 128Roster talent: 616, 44th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619637th of 128Recruiting: 196, 37th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%89th of 128Returning production: 56%, 89th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.4+9.441st of 128SP+ rating: +9.4, 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, 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 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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.21 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 NDQ4 9:33 4th & 1 at ND 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
2. at UNCQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at UNC 9, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs FSUQ4 1:09 4th & 12 at FSU 26, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
4. at VANQ2 3:09 4th & 1 at NCSU 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs FSUQ2 4:01 4th & 2 at FSU 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs MIAQ2 9:09 4th & 10 at NCSU 29, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs ODUQ3 14:55 4th & 1 at NCSU 37, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs FSUQ4 10:37 4th & 10 at FSU 36, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

54th 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

   W&M
2. L

   ECU
3. W

   ODU
4. W

   WAKE
5. W

   ND
6. L

   CLEM
7. L

   LOU
8. L

   BC
9. L

   FSU
10. W

    SYR
11. L

    MIA
12. W

    UNC
13. W

    VAN

What moved it, 2016

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−0.07
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.02

Game by game

• W&MW 48-14 vs W&M97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ECUL 30-33 at ECU60% → 15%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• ODUW 49-22 vs ODU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• WAKEW 33-16 vs WAKE71% → 98%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• NDW 10-3 vs ND39% → 96%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• CLEML 17-24 at CLEM9% → 20%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +10: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts +12
• LOUL 13-54 at LOU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• BCL 14-21 vs BC82% → 13%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• FSUL 20-24 vs FSU26% → 6%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• SYRW 35-20 at SYR62% → 28%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −12, Clock −2
• MIAL 13-27 vs MIA37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• UNCW 28-21 at UNC25% → 91%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +51, Clock +1
• VANW 41-17 at VAN60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +45, Clock +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.