NC State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1878th
  Defense+0.1343rd
• 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.
  Offense49.1%91st
  Defense43.0%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1216th
  Defense+1.1863rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0022nd
  Defense+0.0465th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4094th
  Defense+0.2231st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%79th
  Defense45.3%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.5%97th
  Defense38.5%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.444th
  Defense2.8160th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.0%14th
  Defense19.5%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%65th
  Defense18.3%79th

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, 2018

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
   JMU
2. W
   GAST
3. W
   MRSH
4. W
   UVA
5. W
   BC
6. L
   CLEM
7. L
   SYR
8. W
   FSU
9. L
   WAKE
10. W
    LOU
11. W
    UNC
12. W
    ECU
13. L
    TA&M

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

Players, 2018

1. Ryan FinleyQB418 plays · +0.311 pts/play · 6th of 225 QBs
   2.43WAR1.75 to 3.06
2. Reggie Gallaspy IIRB188 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 42nd of 351 RBs
   0.57WAR0.43 to 0.71
3. Kelvin HarmonWR94 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 3rd of 434 WRs
   0.38WAR0.24 to 0.50
4. Ricky Person Jr.RB93 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 129th of 351 RBs
   0.33WAR0.27 to 0.39
5. Jakobi MeyersWR88 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 19th of 434 WRs
   0.28WAR0.15 to 0.40
6. Christopher DunnPK21 plays · +0.443 pts/play · 5th of 112 kickers
   0.17WAR0.14 to 0.21
7. Emeka EmezieWR62 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 185th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.20
8. C.J. RileyWR34 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 271st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62962941st of 130Roster talent: 629, 41st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719739th of 130Recruiting: 197, 39th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%29th of 129Returning production: 79%, 29th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.4+9.435th of 130SP+ rating: +9.4, 35th of 130 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, 2018

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.16 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 UNCQ4 0:54 4th & 8 at UNC 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
2. at UNCQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at UNC 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs JMUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at NCSU 33, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs BCQ3 5:51 4th & 2 at BC 2, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at SYRQ1 3:22 4th & 1 at NCSU 28, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at UNCQ1 3:20 4th & 1 at NCSU 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at UNCQ2 13:07 4th & 2 at NCSU 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UNCQ2 0:42 4th & 8 at UNC 43, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

62nd 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. W

   JMU
2. W

   GAST
3. W

   MRSH
4. W

   UVA
5. W

   BC
6. L

   CLEM
7. L

   SYR
8. W

   FSU
9. L

   WAKE
10. W

    LOU
11. W

    UNC
12. W

    ECU
13. L

    TA&M

What moved it, 2018

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+0.87
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.99

Game by game

• JMUW 24-13 vs JMU89% → 96%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position −1
• GASTW 41-7 vs GAST95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• MRSHW 37-20 at MRSH70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• UVAW 35-21 vs UVA72% → 98%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• BCW 28-23 vs BC70% → 96%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• CLEML 7-41 at CLEM10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• SYRL 41-51 at SYR59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −1
• FSUW 47-28 vs FSU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Clock −1
• WAKEL 23-27 vs WAKE91% → 15%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• LOUW 52-10 at LOU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18
• UNCW 34-28 at UNC66% → 90%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +15
• ECUW 58-3 vs ECU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• TA&ML 13-52 at TA&M32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32

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.