NC State

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+0.1981st
  Defense+0.0855th
• 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.
  Offense44.9%68th
  Defense41.2%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2571st
  Defense+1.2436th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0862nd
  Defense+0.0455th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3188th
  Defense+0.1160th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%59th
  Defense45.9%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.8%86th
  Defense32.2%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7836th
  Defense2.5978th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%21st
  Defense21.5%68th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%59th
  Defense17.5%64th

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 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. L
   SC
2. W
   MRSH
3. W
   FUR
4. W
   FSU
5. W
   SYR
6. W
   LOU
7. W
   PITT
8. L
   ND
9. L
   CLEM
10. W
    BC
11. L
    WAKE
12. W
    UNC
13. W
    ASU

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

Players, 2017

1. Ryan FinleyQB501 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 6th of 226 QBs
   2.49WAR1.66 to 3.42
2. Nyheim HinesRB212 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 20th of 352 RBs
   0.59WAR0.40 to 0.77
3. Jaylen Samuels?151 plays · +0.118 pts/play
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.44
4. Kelvin HarmonWR104 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 7th of 426 WRs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.40
5. Reggie Gallaspy IIRB104 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 139th of 352 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.31
6. Jakobi MeyersWR84 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 22nd of 426 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.30
7. Stephen LouisWR46 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 103rd of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
8. Kyle BambardPK8 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 103rd of 110 kickers
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61061044th of 130Roster talent: 610, 44th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19219240th of 130Recruiting: 192, 40th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%11th of 128Returning production: 86%, 11th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.9+12.924th of 128SP+ rating: +12.9, 24th 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 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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.23 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 SCQ4 0:06 4th & 10 at SC 10, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.4 pts
2. vs CLEMQ3 0:05 4th & 1 at CLEM 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
3. at PITTQ3 11:15 4th & 4 at PITT 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at ASUQ3 12:16 4th & 1 at NCSU 45, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at BCQ4 0:28 4th & 2 at BC 21, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
6. at NDQ2 0:00 4th & 16 at ND 41, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
7. at WAKEQ2 0:46 4th & 6 at WAKE 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs LOUQ2 14:13 4th & 2 at LOU 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

18th of 130 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. L

   SC
2. W

   MRSH
3. W

   FUR
4. W

   FSU
5. W

   SYR
6. W

   LOU
7. W

   PITT
8. L

   ND
9. L

   CLEM
10. W

    BC
11. L

    WAKE
12. W

    UNC
13. W

    ASU

What moved it, 2017

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+1.35
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.05

Game by game

• SCL 28-35 at SC28% → 3%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• MRSHW 37-20 vs MRSH93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12
• FURW 49-16 vs FUR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• FSUW 27-21 at FSU20% → 95%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• SYRW 33-25 vs SYR83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• LOUW 39-25 vs LOU40% → 98%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +2
• PITTW 35-17 at PITT80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• NDL 14-35 at ND31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −34, Clock +1
• CLEML 31-38 vs CLEM30% → 9%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −35, Clock −3
• BCW 17-14 at BC62% → 88%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• WAKEL 24-30 at WAKE39% → 4%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −3
• UNCW 33-21 vs UNC87% → 98%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• ASUW 52-31 at ASU62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2

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.