NC State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0942nd
  Defense+0.0385th
• 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.
  Offense39.4%22nd
  Defense38.2%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2438th
  Defense+1.2837th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1259th
  Defense+0.0850th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1223rd
  Defense+0.1088th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.2%25th
  Defense43.6%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.1%32nd
  Defense28.4%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1046th
  Defense2.8677th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%57th
  Defense20.7%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%35th
  Defense18.7%84th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   CONN
2. L
   ND
3. W
   VMI
4. W
   UVA
5. L
   LOU
6. W
   MRSH
7. L
   DUKE
8. W
   CLEM
9. W
   MIA
10. W
    WAKE
11. W
    VT
12. W
    UNC
13. L
    KSU

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

Players, 2023

1. Brennan ArmstrongQB323 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 79th of 250 QBs
   1.15WAR0.58 to 1.68
2. MJ MorrisQB112 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 163rd of 250 QBs
   0.28WAR0.01 to 0.56
3. KC ConcepcionWR105 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 55th of 457 WRs
   0.22WAR0.01 to 0.43
4. Caden NoonkesterP58 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 9th of 103 punters
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.26
5. Delbert Mimms IIIRB55 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 216th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Brayden NarvesonPK17 plays · +0.321 pts/play · 33rd of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Michael AllenRB52 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 253rd of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Trent PennixTE14 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 119th of 212 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70170138th of 130Roster talent: 701, 38th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19319345th of 130Recruiting: 193, 45th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%94th of 128Returning production: 39%, 94th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.4+7.439th of 130SP+ rating: +7.4, 39th 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, 2023

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.14 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 KSUQ4 14:03 4th & 2 at NCSU 29, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs NDQ3 7:27 4th & 2 at ND 31, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs LOUQ4 3:50 4th & 8 at NCSU 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at KSUQ3 6:46 4th & 5 at KSU 34, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs MIAQ3 4:52 4th & 3 at NCSU 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at CONNQ2 4:34 4th & 4 at CONN 32, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs CLEMQ2 12:11 4th & 2 at CLEM 23, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at KSUQ3 12:51 4th & 4 at KSU 31, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

14th of 133 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

   CONN
2. L

   ND
3. W

   VMI
4. W

   UVA
5. L

   LOU
6. W

   MRSH
7. L

   DUKE
8. W

   CLEM
9. W

   MIA
10. W

    WAKE
11. W

    VT
12. W

    UNC
13. L

    KSU

What moved it, 2023

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+1.93
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.37

Game by game

• CONNW 24-14 at CONN87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +24, Clock +2
• NDL 24-45 vs ND28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• VMIW 45-7 vs VMI99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UVAW 24-21 at UVA73% → 95%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• LOUL 10-13 vs LOU41% → 6%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• MRSHW 48-41 vs MRSH71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• DUKEL 3-24 at DUKE33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −35
• CLEMW 24-17 vs CLEM21% → 97%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• MIAW 20-6 vs MIA27% → 98%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +2
• WAKEW 26-6 at WAKE53% → 99%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• VTW 35-28 at VT38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• UNCW 39-20 vs UNC37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts +1
• KSUL 19-28 at KSU38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −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.