Try the model

San Diego State

Aztecs · Pac-12 · FBS
11-32016 · 7-2 in conference
SP+
+11.4 (#31)
FPI
+7.5 (#45)
SRS
+5.4 (#44)
Final AP
#25
Resume
#42

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, 2016
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.16, 69th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 45.1%, 65th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.22, 54th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.17, 80th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.18, 55th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 50.3%, 71st percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 33.7%, 49th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.84, 35th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 19.8%, 39th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 15.0%, 65th percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: −0.04, 94th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 37.1%, 88th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.25, 28th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: −0.06, 89th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: −0.02, 92nd percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 42.3%, 86th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 28.1%, 91st percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.50, 86th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 20.3%, 57th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 18.0%, 74th 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, 2016
Per drive

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

Offense+0.5240th of 128
Defense−0.69allowed14th of 128
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense+0.1859th of 128
Defense−0.55allowed15th of 128
Finishing

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

Offense+0.554.3 pts/trip21st of 128
Defense+0.103.9 pts/trip allowed82nd of 128
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.3611th of 128
Defense0.89opponents10th 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, 2016
The quarterback
Christian Chapman: 0.92 WAR (90% interval 0.49 to 1.34)
91st of 218 FBS QBs in WAR · 97th of 162 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 PumphreyRB316 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 2nd of 347 RBs1.08WAR0.72 to 1.38
  2. Christian ChapmanQB258 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 91st of 218 QBs0.92WAR0.49 to 1.34
  3. Rashaad PennyRB108 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 79th of 347 RBs0.41WAR0.27 to 0.54
  4. Tanner BlainP43 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 22nd of 82 punters0.19WAR0.12 to 0.29
  5. John Baron IIPK18 plays · +0.491 pts/play · 17th of 116 kickers0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
  6. Mikah HolderWR35 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 169th of 417 WRs0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
  7. David WellsTE26 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 29th of 195 TEs0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07
  8. Eric JudgeWR17 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 374th of 417 WRs0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
Every player (9)
  1. Nick BawdenFB17 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 290th of 347 RBs0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
0.92WAR
106th of 127
Running backs
1.50WAR
4th of 127
Receivers
0.15WAR
115th of 127
Tight ends
0.03WAR
35th of 127
Kicker
0.17WAR
19th of 127
Punter
0.19WAR
22nd of 127
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
+0.85/game
27th of 127
Front seven
+2.65/game
11th of 127
Secondary
+0.61/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, 2016
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 482, 74th of 128 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 151, 75th of 128 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 57%, 85th of 128 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +11.4, 31st 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
+14.4points per game

San Diego State's SP+ of +11.4 is 14.4 points above the −3.0 its roster talent predicts, 10th of 128 in FBS.

Offense+5.6
Defense+6.8

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

−200+205001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 983, SP+ +31.7 (+1.9 vs. talent)USC: talent 937, SP+ +23.6 (−2.3 vs. talent)LSU: talent 918, SP+ +25.3 (+1.0 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 907, SP+ +24.0 (+0.7 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 902, SP+ +22.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 872, SP+ +9.3 (−11.3 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 865, SP+ +15.3 (−4.8 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 853, SP+ +24.4 (+5.3 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 846, SP+ +28.7 (+10.1 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 842, SP+ +15.7 (−2.6 vs. talent)Texas: talent 839, SP+ +10.6 (−7.4 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 819, SP+ +9.1 (−7.5 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 815, SP+ +12.0 (−4.2 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 814, SP+ +16.3 (+0.1 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 808, SP+ +12.4 (−3.4 vs. talent)Florida: talent 798, SP+ +15.4 (+0.3 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 778, SP+ +16.4 (+2.8 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 777, SP+ +26.1 (+12.5 vs. talent)Miami: talent 746, SP+ +18.6 (+7.2 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 743, SP+ +19.0 (+7.8 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 738, SP+ +6.1 (−4.8 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 720, SP+ +7.4 (−2.3 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 707, SP+ −4.0 (−12.9 vs. talent)Washington: talent 700, SP+ +26.7 (+18.3 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 694, SP+ −3.0 (−11.1 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 692, SP+ +10.3 (+2.4 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 689, SP+ +7.9 (+0.1 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 679, SP+ +5.4 (−1.8 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 670, SP+ +15.9 (+9.3 vs. talent)TCU: talent 666, SP+ +11.0 (+4.7 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 655, SP+ +11.3 (+5.6 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 654, SP+ +22.9 (+17.2 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 652, SP+ −2.6 (−8.1 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 652, SP+ −0.6 (−6.1 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 650, SP+ +13.1 (+7.7 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 647, SP+ +15.2 (+10.0 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 644, SP+ +16.1 (+11.0 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 634, SP+ −1.0 (−5.5 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 632, SP+ +16.4 (+12.0 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 619, SP+ +11.3 (+7.6 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 619, SP+ −1.2 (−4.9 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 619, SP+ −3.8 (−7.5 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 616, SP+ −4.5 (−8.0 vs. talent)NC State: talent 616, SP+ +9.4 (+5.9 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 614, SP+ +2.9 (−0.5 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 605, SP+ +3.7 (+0.8 vs. talent)California: talent 601, SP+ +2.4 (−0.3 vs. talent)Duke: talent 600, SP+ −2.8 (−5.4 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 585, SP+ −14.9 (−16.8 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 583, SP+ +7.8 (+6.1 vs. talent)Utah: talent 580, SP+ +10.9 (+9.3 vs. talent)Houston: talent 573, SP+ +10.1 (+8.9 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 565, SP+ +4.6 (+3.7 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 564, SP+ +9.8 (+9.0 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 559, SP+ +10.3 (+9.8 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 552, SP+ +0.7 (+0.5 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 549, SP+ +11.5 (+11.5 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 542, SP+ −3.6 (−3.3 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 535, SP+ +12.6 (+13.2 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 533, SP+ −1.6 (−0.9 vs. talent)BYU: talent 529, SP+ +8.0 (+8.9 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 526, SP+ +6.3 (+7.3 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 525, SP+ −4.6 (−3.5 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 524, SP+ −6.7 (−5.5 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 523, SP+ +6.2 (+7.4 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 520, SP+ −2.7 (−1.4 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 518, SP+ −0.6 (+0.8 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 513, SP+ −11.0 (−9.3 vs. talent)UCF: talent 510, SP+ −2.2 (−0.4 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 505, SP+ +8.2 (+10.2 vs. talent)Temple: talent 493, SP+ +11.9 (+14.5 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 491, SP+ −15.9 (−13.3 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 485, SP+ −12.7 (−9.8 vs. talent)SMU: talent 474, SP+ −10.8 (−7.4 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 471, SP+ −1.2 (+2.3 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 461, SP+ +12.3 (+16.2 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 451, SP+ +3.1 (+7.4 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 451, SP+ +7.7 (+12.0 vs. talent)Akron: talent 444, SP+ −5.6 (−1.0 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 443, SP+ +11.5 (+16.1 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 442, SP+ −9.0 (−4.4 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 441, SP+ +0.7 (+5.4 vs. talent)San José State: talent 437, SP+ −13.6 (−8.8 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 437, SP+ −1.9 (+3.0 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 435, SP+ −3.9 (+1.0 vs. talent)UConn: talent 424, SP+ −11.6 (−6.2 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 421, SP+ −8.7 (−3.3 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 418, SP+ −6.1 (−0.5 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 412, SP+ +0.8 (+6.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 409, SP+ +7.4 (+13.3 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 408, SP+ −14.1 (−8.2 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 405, SP+ −16.9 (−10.9 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 403, SP+ −2.4 (+3.7 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 402, SP+ +15.5 (+21.6 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 398, SP+ −11.2 (−4.9 vs. talent)Rice: talent 395, SP+ −16.5 (−10.1 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 393, SP+ −6.6 (−0.1 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 392, SP+ −6.1 (+0.4 vs. talent)Troy: talent 390, SP+ +1.1 (+7.6 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 390, SP+ −13.0 (−6.4 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 389, SP+ −9.4 (−2.8 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 388, SP+ −14.6 (−8.0 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 387, SP+ −5.1 (+1.5 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 385, SP+ −10.1 (−3.4 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 376, SP+ −14.3 (−7.3 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 373, SP+ −2.1 (+5.0 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 371, SP+ −15.3 (−8.1 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 366, SP+ −7.0 (+0.3 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 363, SP+ −19.0 (−11.6 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 357, SP+ −4.4 (+3.2 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 352, SP+ −25.5 (−17.7 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 352, SP+ −14.6 (−6.8 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 348, SP+ −8.2 (−0.3 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 347, SP+ −0.7 (+7.2 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 344, SP+ −18.8 (−10.8 vs. talent)Navy: talent 343, SP+ +6.8 (+14.9 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 334, SP+ −12.0 (−3.7 vs. talent)App State: talent 333, SP+ +9.2 (+17.5 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 331, SP+ −20.9 (−12.5 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 323, SP+ −21.3 (−12.7 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 322, SP+ −12.1 (−3.4 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 316, SP+ −6.9 (+1.9 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 290, SP+ −16.1 (−6.6 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 268, SP+ −17.2 (−7.2 vs. talent)Idaho: talent 257, SP+ −8.6 (+1.7 vs. talent)Army: talent 132, SP+ −9.9 (+2.4 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 45, SP+ +4.4 (+17.2 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 482, SP+ +11.4, expected −3.0San Diego State
One dot per FBS team, 2016. 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, 2016
Made the numbers' call

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

61 of 8671%75th of 128
FBS median 72%
Win probability given up

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

1.0 ptsper game43rd of 128
0.14 expected wins over 13 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.

4 of 850%
FBS teams went 59%

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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 WYOQ4 6:54 4th & 2 at WYO 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
  2. vs HOUQ3 10:46 4th & 2 at HOU 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
  3. at WYOQ2 6:26 4th & 1 at SDSU 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
  4. vs CSUQ2 4:59 4th & 1 at SDSU 40, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
  5. at NIUQ4 4:16 4th & 4 at NIU 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
  6. at NIUQ2 3:52 4th & 1 at SDSU 47, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
  7. vs HAWQ3 13:29 4th & 22 at HAW 34, up 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
  8. vs UNLVQ4 9:55 4th & 1 at UNLV 47, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
Every call this season (86)
Wk 2 · vs CAL · W 45-407 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 10:454th & 4 at CAL 32, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 8:194th & 12 at SDSU 35, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 6:424th & 11 at CAL 41, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 0:384th & 2 at CAL 22, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 15:004th & 5 at SDSU 40, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 7:524th & 6 at SDSU 29, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 10:554th & 27 at SDSU 34, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 3 · at NIU · W 42-284 of 7 agreed
  1. Q2 14:094th & 2 at NIU 5, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 9:374th & 20 at NIU 48, up 21 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 3:524th & 1 at SDSU 47, up 21 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q3 15:004th & 21 at SDSU 14, up 21 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 10:544th & 7 at NIU 27, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 7:404th & 20 at NIU 36, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 4:164th & 4 at NIU 38, up 14 · Punted−1.0 pts
Wk 5 · at USA · L 24-426 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 14:074th & 8 at SDSU 37, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 9:044th & 10 at SDSU 27, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 0:134th & 5 at SDSU 31, down 8 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 10:544th & 21 at SDSU 41, down 5 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 9:004th & 3 at SDSU 46, down 4 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 3:424th & 1 at USA 37, down 18 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 0:254th & 15 at SDSU 26, down 18 · PuntedClose call
Wk 6 · vs UNLV · W 26-74 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 13:074th & 1 at UNLV 38, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 8:164th & 6 at UNLV 31, up 7 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q1 5:294th & 1 at UNLV 32, up 10 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 15:004th & 15 at UNLV 35, up 10 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 10:314th & 1 at UNLV 40, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q2 1:284th & 10 at UNLV 32, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 9:554th & 1 at UNLV 47, up 19 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 0:264th & 3 at UNLV 46, up 19 · PuntedClose call
Wk 7 · at FRES · W 17-33 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 1 at FRES 1, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 4:214th & 6 at FRES 29, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q2 4:164th & 11 at FRES 37, up 10 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q3 9:444th & 18 at FRES 45, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 11:024th & 7 at SDSU 13, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 2:164th & 8 at FRES 40, up 14 · PuntedClose call
Wk 8 · vs SJSU · W 42-34 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 11:014th & 4 at SDSU 39, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 3:384th & 2 at SJSU 14, tied · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 1:024th & 12 at SDSU 38, up 18 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 11:454th & 1 at SJSU 36, up 18 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q4 6:424th & 6 at SDSU 9, up 39 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 9 · at USU · W 40-135 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 8 at SDSU 38, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 1:044th & 4 at USU 4, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q2 4:444th & 3 at SDSU 34, up 10 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 0:004th & 9 at USU 24, up 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 8:244th & 7 at USU 26, up 13 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q4 14:494th & 6 at USU 6, up 16 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 7:554th & 8 at SDSU 30, up 27 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 10 · vs HAW · W 55-05 of 7 agreed
  1. Q2 14:544th & 19 at SDSU 36, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 3:454th & 5 at HAW 13, up 21 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 1:094th & 6 at HAW 49, up 24 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 13:294th & 22 at HAW 34, up 27 · Went for itClose call
  5. Q3 11:334th & 22 at HAW 34, up 27 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 11:334th & 5 at HAW 46, up 27 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q3 4:184th & 6 at SDSU 38, up 34 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 11 · at NEV · W 46-161 of 2 agreed
  1. Q1 2:034th & 11 at NEV 11, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 14:114th & 5 at NEV 46, up 3 · PuntedClose call
Wk 12 · at WYO · L 33-346 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 10:274th & 5 at SDSU 30, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 5:484th & 8 at SDSU 47, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 7:494th & 10 at WYO 10, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 6:264th & 1 at SDSU 40, up 7 · Punted−1.7 pts
  5. Q3 4:154th & 9 at SDSU 29, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 10:454th & 12 at WYO 14, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 9:454th & 15 at SDSU 45, tied · PuntedAgreed
Wk 13 · vs CSU · L 31-634 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 12:314th & 2 at SDSU 38, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 11:394th & 10 at CSU 17, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 4:594th & 1 at SDSU 40, down 11 · Punted−1.5 pts
  4. Q3 15:004th & 20 at SDSU 38, down 18 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 2:314th & 4 at SDSU 43, down 25 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 12:474th & 8 at SDSU 34, down 39 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 14 · at WYO · W 27-246 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 13:534th & 16 at SDSU 19, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 9:274th & 7 at SDSU 11, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 9:394th & 9 at WYO 20, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 4:484th & 12 at SDSU 11, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 8:294th & 9 at SDSU 42, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 1:254th & 1 at WYO 6, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 11:494th & 5 at WYO 44, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 6:544th & 2 at WYO 3, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−2.4 pts
Las Vegas Bowl · vs HOU · W 34-106 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 13:174th & 10 at SDSU 25, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 10:094th & 20 at SDSU 5, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 5:124th & 3 at SDSU 32, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 12:294th & 22 at SDSU 47, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 6:284th & 4 at HOU 5, down 10 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  6. Q2 1:294th & 6 at HOU 11, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q3 10:464th & 2 at HOU 46, down 4 · Punted−1.9 pts
  8. Q4 10:184th & 9 at SDSU 46, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 5:084th & 4 at HOU 46, up 17 · PuntedClose call
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

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

51 of 5888%
FBS median 93%
Win probability given up

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

2.6 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.7 pts
When two was clearly right

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

-
Went for two 4 times, converted 1
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. at WYOQ4 0:00 Touchdown, down 1 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking−1.9 pts
  2. at USAQ3 3:06 Touchdown, up 1 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.2 pts
  3. vs UNLVQ4 12:47 Touchdown, up 19 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.2 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, 2016
10-3vs. 9.8 expected+0.2 wins

56th 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. Based on 13 of 14 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

  1. W
  2. W
  3. W
  4. L
  5. W
  6. W
  7. W
  8. W
  9. W
  10. W
  11. L
  12. L
  13. W
  14. W
What moved it, 2016
+3.3 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
+0.4 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+1.54
  • Possession & field position+0.04
  • Clock+0.03
  • Timeouts+0.01
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.27
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, 2016

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

Biggest swings of 2016

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