Try the model

San Diego State

Aztecs · Pac-12 · FBS
11-32015 · 9-0 in conference
SP+
+8.0 (#47)
FPI
+6.3 (#53)
SRS
+6.2 (#49)
Resume
#43

Next game

FRES
vs Fresno State
Sat, Oct 17 · 10:30 PM EDT
Projected score
SDSU20
FRES29
Win chance
28%
SDSU 28%FRES 72%
Market: FRES favored by 7.5 · Points model v7, built without betting lines. A model's view, not betting advice.Full projection →

Advanced stats

CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →

Profile vs. FBS, 2015
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.17, 74th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 44.1%, 59th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.15, 28th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.13, 75th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.31, 80th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 48.4%, 60th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 34.3%, 52nd percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.01, 69th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 17.7%, 74th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 2.9%, 12th percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: −0.06, 97th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 37.1%, 90th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.16, 61st percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: −0.07, 91st percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: −0.03, 94th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 44.2%, 72nd percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 23.6%, 99th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.52, 86th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 25.0%, 90th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 4.7%, 99th percentile among FBS

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.
  • 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.
  • Explosiveness
    Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  • Rushing EPA
    EPA per designed run.
  • Passing EPA
    EPA per pass play.
  • Standard downs
    Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  • Passing downs
    Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  • Line yards
    Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  • Stuff rate
    Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  • Havoc
    Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.

Percentiles among the 128 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.

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2015
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense+0.5033rd of 128
Defense−0.94allowed9th of 128
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense+0.1552nd of 128
Defense−0.60allowed18th of 128
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense+0.654.4 pts/trip12th of 128
Defense−1.083.1 pts/trip allowed10th of 128
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.378th of 128
Defense0.90opponents11th of 128

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 San Diego 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
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

Bars above the line: better than expected for San Diego State.

Players

YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →

Players, 2015
The quarterback
Maxwell Smith: 0.60 WAR (90% interval 0.33 to 0.86)
126th of 205 FBS QBs in WAR · 129th of 164 in value per play

Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.

  1. Donnel PumphreyRB285 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 9th of 333 RBs0.67WAR0.39 to 0.93
  2. Maxwell SmithQB166 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 126th of 205 QBs0.60WAR0.33 to 0.86
  3. Chase PriceRB149 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 98th of 333 RBs0.25WAR0.14 to 0.36
  4. Christian ChapmanQB51 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 173rd of 205 QBs0.23WAR0.15 to 0.31
  5. Tanner BlainP58 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 3rd of 92 punters0.22WAR0.10 to 0.34
  6. Donny HagemanPK15 plays · +0.463 pts/play · 46th of 115 kickers0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
  7. Mikah HolderWR32 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 217th of 411 WRs0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
  8. Jemond HazelyWR23 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 298th of 411 WRs0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
Every player (12)
  1. Eric JudgeWR17 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 331st of 411 WRs0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
  2. Dakota GordonFB12 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 275th of 333 RBs0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
  3. Lloyd MillsWR2 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 400th of 411 WRs0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01
  4. Daniel BrunskillTE10 plays · −0.031 pts/play · 40th of 189 TEs−0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.01
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
0.83WAR
115th of 127
Running backs
0.93WAR
3rd of 127
Receivers
0.21WAR
101st of 127
Tight ends
−0.01WAR
70th of 127
Kicker
0.13WAR
50th of 127
Punter
0.22WAR
4th of 127
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
+1.63/game
17th of 127
Front seven
+1.58/game
33rd of 127
Secondary
+0.64/game
43rd of 127

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 San Diego 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

Talent and roster

How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →

What it had and what it did, 2015
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 495, 70th of 128 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 155, 72nd of 128 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 67%, 58th of 127 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +8.0, 47th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion
+10.0points per game

San Diego State's SP+ of +8.0 is 10.0 points above the −2.0 its roster talent predicts, 17th of 128 in FBS.

Offense+1.7
Defense+6.2

The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.

−200+205001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 982, SP+ +29.0 (−1.6 vs. talent)USC: talent 927, SP+ +16.8 (−9.1 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 907, SP+ +29.5 (+5.3 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 890, SP+ +23.2 (+0.4 vs. talent)LSU: talent 889, SP+ +19.7 (−3.1 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 878, SP+ +16.8 (−5.0 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 865, SP+ +14.6 (−6.3 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 857, SP+ +22.4 (+2.2 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 851, SP+ +19.7 (0.0 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 830, SP+ +14.1 (−4.0 vs. talent)Texas: talent 821, SP+ +3.7 (−13.8 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 811, SP+ +19.5 (+2.8 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 808, SP+ +24.0 (+7.6 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 793, SP+ +18.6 (+3.2 vs. talent)Florida: talent 790, SP+ +13.8 (−1.4 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 776, SP+ +22.7 (+8.5 vs. talent)Miami: talent 773, SP+ +11.0 (−3.0 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 766, SP+ +22.8 (+9.3 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 764, SP+ +27.0 (+13.6 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 758, SP+ +15.9 (+3.0 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 732, SP+ +11.3 (+0.1 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 726, SP+ +3.4 (−7.3 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 715, SP+ +15.6 (+5.5 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 700, SP+ +11.1 (+2.0 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 695, SP+ +19.2 (+10.4 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 683, SP+ +20.0 (+12.0 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 681, SP+ +10.2 (+2.3 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 680, SP+ +15.1 (+7.3 vs. talent)Washington: talent 667, SP+ +9.7 (+2.6 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 667, SP+ +1.4 (−5.6 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 660, SP+ +19.5 (+12.9 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 658, SP+ +11.4 (+4.9 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 652, SP+ +9.9 (+3.8 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 643, SP+ +3.4 (−2.2 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 641, SP+ +4.5 (−1.0 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 641, SP+ +13.2 (+7.7 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 636, SP+ +15.1 (+9.9 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 635, SP+ −0.3 (−5.4 vs. talent)TCU: talent 630, SP+ +19.0 (+14.1 vs. talent)California: talent 626, SP+ +12.1 (+7.5 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 626, SP+ +12.9 (+8.3 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 611, SP+ +11.1 (+7.3 vs. talent)NC State: talent 610, SP+ +9.6 (+5.8 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 610, SP+ −1.6 (−5.3 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 607, SP+ +4.7 (+1.1 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 604, SP+ −1.6 (−5.0 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 602, SP+ −10.1 (−13.4 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 596, SP+ +0.2 (−2.8 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 590, SP+ +9.0 (+6.3 vs. talent)Utah: talent 574, SP+ +11.0 (+9.2 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 573, SP+ +9.3 (+7.5 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 569, SP+ +11.8 (+10.3 vs. talent)Duke: talent 563, SP+ +3.4 (+2.2 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 559, SP+ +0.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 545, SP+ −10.1 (−10.4 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 542, SP+ −4.0 (−4.2 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 541, SP+ +4.2 (+4.1 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 535, SP+ +4.7 (+4.9 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 534, SP+ −7.4 (−7.2 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 531, SP+ +2.7 (+3.0 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 530, SP+ +3.6 (+4.0 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 529, SP+ −0.3 (+0.1 vs. talent)BYU: talent 521, SP+ +8.7 (+9.5 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 516, SP+ +8.1 (+9.1 vs. talent)Houston: talent 511, SP+ +6.2 (+7.5 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 509, SP+ −3.9 (−2.5 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 504, SP+ +2.6 (+4.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 500, SP+ −21.3 (−19.5 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 497, SP+ −4.5 (−2.6 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 495, SP+ +5.3 (+7.3 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 490, SP+ +3.5 (+5.7 vs. talent)UCF: talent 485, SP+ −15.5 (−13.0 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 471, SP+ +1.4 (+4.5 vs. talent)SMU: talent 447, SP+ −17.5 (−13.4 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 442, SP+ +4.9 (+9.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 438, SP+ +8.3 (+12.7 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 434, SP+ +7.5 (+12.1 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 430, SP+ −7.1 (−2.4 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 429, SP+ +7.7 (+12.5 vs. talent)Akron: talent 413, SP+ −0.8 (+4.6 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 410, SP+ −4.6 (+0.9 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 408, SP+ −14.0 (−8.5 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 408, SP+ +0.5 (+6.0 vs. talent)Temple: talent 406, SP+ +6.0 (+11.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 404, SP+ −8.5 (−2.8 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 404, SP+ −0.5 (+5.2 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 403, SP+ −12.6 (−6.8 vs. talent)UConn: talent 402, SP+ −6.3 (−0.5 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 402, SP+ −9.8 (−4.0 vs. talent)Rice: talent 400, SP+ −14.6 (−8.7 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 397, SP+ −13.5 (−7.6 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 391, SP+ +7.3 (+13.5 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 389, SP+ +0.5 (+6.7 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 386, SP+ −16.3 (−9.9 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 382, SP+ +8.0 (+14.5 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 381, SP+ −0.9 (+5.6 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 381, SP+ −25.0 (−18.5 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 381, SP+ −7.1 (−0.6 vs. talent)San José State: talent 380, SP+ −4.5 (+2.1 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 377, SP+ −3.1 (+3.6 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 367, SP+ −10.4 (−3.4 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 360, SP+ −15.5 (−8.3 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 360, SP+ −16.6 (−9.4 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 356, SP+ −17.7 (−10.4 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 354, SP+ +10.8 (+18.2 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 350, SP+ −15.5 (−8.0 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 342, SP+ −8.7 (−0.9 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 341, SP+ −19.7 (−11.9 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 338, SP+ −11.9 (−4.0 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 336, SP+ −6.7 (+1.3 vs. talent)Troy: talent 335, SP+ −7.0 (+1.0 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 333, SP+ −16.2 (−8.1 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 331, SP+ −0.1 (+8.0 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 331, SP+ −0.5 (+7.6 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 324, SP+ −9.5 (−1.2 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 320, SP+ −14.8 (−6.4 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 316, SP+ −10.3 (−1.8 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 315, SP+ −16.7 (−8.1 vs. talent)App State: talent 313, SP+ +7.9 (+16.5 vs. talent)Navy: talent 307, SP+ +12.1 (+20.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 304, SP+ −21.7 (−12.8 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 293, SP+ −14.7 (−5.5 vs. talent)Idaho: talent 262, SP+ −12.2 (−2.3 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 256, SP+ −19.5 (−9.4 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 251, SP+ −18.6 (−8.4 vs. talent)Army: talent 186, SP+ −21.7 (−10.3 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 71, SP+ +4.7 (+17.4 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 495, SP+ +8.0, expected −2.0San Diego State
One dot per FBS team, 2015. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is San Diego State's conversion.
Conversion by season

Bars above the line: SP+ above what the roster's talent predicted. The lighter bar is the season in progress.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

67 of 10564%120th of 128
FBS median 71%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

1.5 ptsper game79th of 128
0.20 expected wins over 14 games, FBS median 1.3 pts
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

3 of 1030%
FBS teams went 56%

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 San Diego 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 0.10 of the 0.20 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 USAQ4 14:51 4th & 2 at SDSU 30, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
  2. at CINQ2 4:59 4th & 2 at SDSU 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
  3. vs FRESQ2 6:38 4th & 1 at SDSU 26, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
  4. vs USAQ4 6:53 4th & 4 at USA 23, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
  5. vs USAQ3 4:24 4th & 6 at USA 37, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
  6. at CSUQ2 3:22 4th & 3 at CSU 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
  7. at HAWQ2 7:23 4th & 2 at SDSU 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
  8. at SJSUQ3 11:02 4th & 3 at SJSU 8, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
Every call this season (105)
Wk 1 · vs USD · W 37-37 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 12:574th & 14 at SDSU 28, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 14:514th & 4 at SDSU 20, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 11:124th & 10 at SDSU 49, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 4:534th & 8 at USD 16, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q2 2:534th & 8 at USD 19, up 17 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 13:264th & 10 at USD 47, up 27 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 10:064th & 6 at SDSU 45, up 27 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 9:574th & 13 at USD 17, up 24 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 2 · at CAL · L 7-359 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 9:184th & 10 at SDSU 40, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 15:004th & 14 at SDSU 43, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 12:144th & 8 at CAL 45, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 10:244th & 16 at CAL 47, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 12:384th & 4 at SDSU 41, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 7:564th & 18 at SDSU 17, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 12:244th & 11 at SDSU 38, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 8:024th & 10 at SDSU 47, down 28 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 5:094th & 9 at SDSU 45, down 28 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 3 · vs USA · L 27-342 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 7 at SDSU 24, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 6:514th & 2 at SDSU 33, down 3 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 12:594th & 3 at USA 23, down 3 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q2 6:424th & 4 at SDSU 38, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 3:444th & 16 at USA 47, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 14:214th & 5 at USA 43, tied · PuntedClose call
  7. Q3 4:244th & 6 at USA 37, tied · Kicked a field goal−1.2 pts
  8. Q4 14:514th & 2 at SDSU 30, up 3 · Punted−1.9 pts
  9. Q4 6:534th & 4 at USA 23, up 3 · Kicked a field goal−1.2 pts
Wk 4 · at PSU · L 21-378 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 17 at SDSU 28, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 9:264th & 9 at SDSU 21, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 15:004th & 8 at SDSU 37, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 6:254th & 8 at SDSU 41, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 12:224th & 9 at SDSU 28, down 13 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 6:194th & 7 at PSU 41, down 6 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 13:364th & 17 at SDSU 30, down 13 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 9:524th & 15 at SDSU 46, down 16 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 3:254th & 7 at PSU 48, down 16 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 5 · vs FRES · W 21-73 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 1 at FRES 35, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 0:494th & 7 at FRES 33, up 7 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q2 14:124th & 5 at SDSU 20, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 9:504th & 3 at SDSU 25, tied · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 6:384th & 1 at SDSU 26, tied · Punted−1.4 pts
  6. Q2 0:424th & 6 at SDSU 35, tied · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 6:284th & 6 at FRES 41, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 4:504th & 2 at FRES 25, up 14 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  9. Q4 0:284th & 1 at FRES 21, up 14 · Went for itClose call
Wk 6 · at HAW · W 28-144 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 6:454th & 18 at SDSU 41, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 0:574th & 3 at SDSU 40, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 12:374th & 7 at HAW 44, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 7:234th & 2 at SDSU 49, up 7 · Punted−1.1 pts
  5. Q2 0:164th & 8 at SDSU 35, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 13:334th & 6 at SDSU 44, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 7:074th & 15 at SDSU 11, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 3:094th & 8 at HAW 41, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  9. Q4 1:594th & 3 at SDSU 19, up 14 · PuntedClose call
Wk 7 · at SJSU · W 30-74 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 13:214th & 6 at SJSU 43, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 7:334th & 7 at SJSU 45, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 0:184th & 4 at SJSU 14, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 11:024th & 3 at SJSU 8, up 10 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q3 2:374th & 12 at SJSU 22, up 20 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q4 14:024th & 3 at SDSU 44, up 23 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 8:224th & 1 at SJSU 33, up 23 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 8 · vs USU · W 48-145 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 13:354th & 1 at SDSU 37, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 2:534th & 12 at USU 24, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 1:294th & 3 at USU 4, up 24 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q3 10:414th & 8 at SDSU 27, up 20 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 6:394th & 8 at SDSU 15, up 20 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 0:574th & 3 at USU 40, up 20 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 14:094th & 10 at USU 19, up 20 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 0:544th & 2 at SDSU 18, up 34 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 9 · at CSU · W 41-174 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 11:344th & 1 at CSU 1, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 5:274th & 5 at CSU 44, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 14:454th & 11 at SDSU 28, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 3:224th & 3 at CSU 3, down 3 · Kicked a field goal−1.2 pts
  5. Q2 0:344th & 9 at SDSU 25, tied · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 5:464th & 5 at SDSU 19, up 24 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 11 · vs WYO · W 38-33 of 4 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 1 at SDSU 33, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 13:394th & 8 at SDSU 41, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 3:514th & 7 at SDSU 30, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 4:504th & 9 at WYO 9, up 21 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 12 · at UNLV · W 52-145 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 1:404th & 2 at UNLV 2, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 15:004th & 15 at SDSU 48, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 14:594th & 4 at SDSU 41, up 31 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 12:134th & 8 at SDSU 38, up 24 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 7:104th & 8 at SDSU 25, up 38 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 13 · vs NEV · W 31-143 of 9 agreed
  1. Q2 15:004th & 3 at NEV 40, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 14:534th & 6 at SDSU 24, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 7:024th & 4 at NEV 9, up 7 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q3 13:094th & 4 at NEV 45, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 2:584th & 3 at NEV 12, up 7 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  6. Q4 13:364th & 1 at NEV 2, up 10 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 11:454th & 6 at SDSU 36, up 17 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 8:294th & 6 at NEV 39, up 17 · PuntedClose call
  9. Q4 3:014th & 2 at SDSU 47, up 17 · PuntedClose call
Wk 14 · vs AF · W 27-247 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 11:514th & 6 at SDSU 43, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 7:234th & 24 at AF 40, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 7:544th & 4 at SDSU 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 1:444th & 4 at AF 5, down 3 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q3 4:234th & 1 at AF 29, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 10:074th & 8 at SDSU 30, tied · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 5:104th & 14 at AF 29, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 0:364th & 10 at SDSU 45, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
Hawai'i Bowl · at CIN · W 42-73 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 5:424th & 13 at SDSU 31, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 12:574th & 1 at CIN 42, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 11:364th & 9 at CIN 38, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 4:594th & 2 at SDSU 48, up 14 · Punted−1.6 pts
  5. Q3 11:084th & 9 at SDSU 9, up 21 · PuntedAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

53 of 5596%
FBS median 92%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0.2 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.6 pts
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Never went for two
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. at CSUQ4 7:55 Touchdown, up 23 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.1 pts
  2. vs FRESQ4 10:57 Touchdown, up 13 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.1 pts

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2015
11-3vs. 8.6 expected+2.4 wins

10th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up San Diego State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

  1. W
  2. L
  3. L
  4. L
  5. W
  6. W
  7. W
  8. W
  9. W
  10. W
  11. W
  12. W
  13. W
  14. W
What moved it, 2015
+1.6 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
+2.3 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

Every game starts at San Diego 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+2.83
  • Possession & field position−0.01
  • Clock+0.23
  • Timeouts−0.17
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.56
Game by game

Points of win probability, from San Diego State's side.

Closest call

TOL 14-17 SDSU (2022) - San Diego State dropped to a 13.4% win probability before pulling it out.

Season arc, 2015

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is San Diego State's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2015

The largest single-play change in San Diego State's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

San Diego State's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

San Diego State's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

San Diego State's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$93.72-14.0% over the past year
Series & rivalries

San Diego State's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com