NC State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2183rd
  Defense+0.1817th
• 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.
  Offense43.8%64th
  Defense39.2%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3791st
  Defense+1.441st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1472nd
  Defense+0.1032nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3076th
  Defense+0.2527th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%61st
  Defense43.3%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%64th
  Defense31.4%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9450th
  Defense2.8754th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%18th
  Defense19.3%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%46th
  Defense14.9%36th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UVA
3. W
   WAKE
4. L
   DUKE
5. L
   VT
6. W
   CAM
7. L
   ND
8. L
   PITT
9. W
   GT
10. L
    MIA
11. W
    FSU
12. W
    UNC
13. W
    MEM

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

Players, 2025

1. CJ BaileyQB391 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 40th of 231 QBs
   1.50WAR0.73 to 2.23
2. Hollywood SmothersRB178 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 45th of 365 RBs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.42
3. Terrell AndersonWR46 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 67th of 451 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.30
4. Justin JolyTE57 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 6th of 213 TEs
   0.18WAR0.06 to 0.29
5. Jayden ScottRB82 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 161st of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
6. Wesley GrimesWR36 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 160th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
7. Noah RogersWR40 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 279th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.14
8. Caden NoonkesterP44 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 40th of 100 punters
   0.04WAR−0.03 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70870845th of 134Roster talent: 708, 45th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20420439th of 134Recruiting: 204, 39th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%6th of 132Returning production: 73%, 6th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.8+4.854th of 134SP+ rating: +4.8, 54th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.07 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 1:47 4th & 6 at FSU 12, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
2. at MIAQ2 3:16 4th & 1 at NCSU 27, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs UVAQ2 10:20 4th & 1 at NCSU 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs MEMQ2 3:19 4th & 3 at NCSU 42, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at NDQ4 14:04 4th & 11 at NCSU 48, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs MEMQ2 8:03 4th & 5 at MEM 34, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs MEMQ4 14:06 4th & 22 at MEM 32, up 24Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at PITTQ3 10:58 4th & 4 at NCSU 48, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

49th of 136 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

   UVA
3. W

   WAKE
4. L

   DUKE
5. L

   VT
6. W

   CAM
7. L

   ND
8. L

   PITT
9. W

   GT
10. L

    MIA
11. W

    FSU
12. W

    UNC
13. W

    MEM

What moved it, 2025

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+0.79
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Timeouts+0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.10

Game by game

• ECUW 24-17 vs ECU84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• UVAW 35-31 vs UVA63% → 95%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +3
• WAKEW 34-24 at WAKE72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• DUKEL 33-45 at DUKE45% → 2%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• VTL 21-23 vs VT78% → 6%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• CAMW 56-10 vs CAM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• NDL 7-36 at ND7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• PITTL 34-53 at PITT38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• GTW 48-36 vs GT37% → 98%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• MIAL 7-41 at MIA17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• FSUW 21-11 vs FSU36% → 96%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• UNCW 42-19 vs UNC74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29
• MEMW 31-7 vs MEM69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, 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.