NC State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0737th
  Defense+0.0475th
• 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.
  Offense38.7%18th
  Defense35.1%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2032nd
  Defense+1.415th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0312th
  Defense−0.0185th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2039th
  Defense+0.1277th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%29th
  Defense38.0%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.4%14th
  Defense30.4%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.788th
  Defense2.5199th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%17th
  Defense26.3%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%44th
  Defense18.9%85th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   ECU
2. W
   CHSO
3. W
   TTU
4. W
   CONN
5. L
   CLEM
6. W
   FSU
7. L
   SYR
8. W
   VT
9. W
   WAKE
10. L
    BC
11. L
    LOU
12. W
    UNC
13. L
    MD

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

Players, 2022

1. Ben FinleyQB112 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 126th of 234 QBs
   0.48WAR0.22 to 0.74
2. MJ MorrisQB129 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 145th of 234 QBs
   0.35WAR0.07 to 0.63
3. Jordan HoustonRB163 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 76th of 384 RBs
   0.34WAR0.23 to 0.44
4. Devin LearyQB129 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 154th of 234 QBs
   0.29WAR0.00 to 0.64
5. Jack ChambersQB77 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 160th of 234 QBs
   0.26WAR0.10 to 0.43
6. Thayer ThomasWR69 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 96th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.03 to 0.28
7. Christopher DunnPK24 plays · +0.337 pts/play · 5th of 110 kickers
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
8. Devin CarterWR35 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 243rd of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.15

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68668635th of 129Roster talent: 686, 35th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619639th of 129Recruiting: 196, 39th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%38th of 128Returning production: 70%, 38th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.8+6.849th of 129SP+ rating: +6.8, 49th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.25 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 FSUQ4 6:24 4th & 5 at FSU 35, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.0 pts
2. vs FSUQ4 4:25 4th & 5 at FSU 35, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.0 pts
3. at SYRQ2 2:18 4th & 1 at NCSU 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs MDQ2 4:37 4th & 2 at MD 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs MDQ4 4:30 4th & 9 at MD 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs WAKEQ3 2:01 4th & 4 at WAKE 33, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at LOUQ2 11:44 4th & 1 at NCSU 13, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs VTQ3 9:29 4th & 9 at VT 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

64th of 131 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

   ECU
2. W

   CHSO
3. W

   TTU
4. W

   CONN
5. L

   CLEM
6. W

   FSU
7. L

   SYR
8. W

   VT
9. W

   WAKE
10. L

    BC
11. L

    LOU
12. W

    UNC
13. L

    MD

What moved it, 2022

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−0.15
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.23
• Timeouts+0.24
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.28

Game by game

• ECUW 21-20 at ECU78% → 92%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• CHSOW 55-3 vs CHSO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TTUW 27-14 vs TTU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 41-10 vs CONN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• CLEML 20-30 at CLEM29% → 3%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• FSUW 19-17 vs FSU56% → 95%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +3
• SYRL 9-24 at SYR40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position +2
• VTW 22-21 vs VT83% → 92%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −1
• WAKEW 30-21 vs WAKE41% → 97%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• BCL 20-21 vs BC86% → 6%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• LOUL 10-25 at LOU36% → 3%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position +1
• UNCW 30-27 at UNC30% → 65%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +21
• MDL 12-16 vs MD52% → 5%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3

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.