Try the model

San Diego State

Aztecs · Pac-12 · FBS
7-62018 · 4-4 in conference
SP+
+6.0 (#47)
FPI
−4.8 (#90)
SRS
−4.8 (#89)
Resume
#64

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, 2018
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.07, 30th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 39.0%, 14th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.25, 67th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: −0.02, 15th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.22, 62nd percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 43.1%, 14th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 32.3%, 42nd percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.73, 25th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 22.8%, 17th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 17.9%, 22nd percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.05, 67th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 39.0%, 82nd percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.21, 49th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: −0.07, 92nd percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.19, 40th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 42.4%, 88th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 32.3%, 55th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.35, 98th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 19.9%, 54th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 15.8%, 41st 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 130 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, 2018
Per drive

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

Offense−0.1694th of 130
Defense+0.02allowed62nd of 130
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense−0.2094th of 130
Defense+0.02allowed55th of 130
Finishing

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

Offense−0.403.4 pts/trip101st of 130
Defense−0.133.8 pts/trip allowed55th of 130
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.00103rd of 130
Defense1.05opponents60th of 130

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, 2018
The quarterback
Ryan Agnew: 1.03 WAR (90% interval 0.68 to 1.50)
81st of 225 FBS QBs in WAR · 89th of 172 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. Ryan AgnewQB262 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 81st of 225 QBs1.03WAR0.68 to 1.50
  2. Juwan WashingtonRB201 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 41st of 351 RBs0.58WAR0.40 to 0.75
  3. Chase JasminRB138 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 77th of 351 RBs0.43WAR0.33 to 0.51
  4. Christian ChapmanQB106 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 162nd of 225 QBs0.34WAR0.18 to 0.50
  5. John Baron IIPK21 plays · +0.436 pts/play · 7th of 112 kickers0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
  6. Fred TrevillionWR35 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 124th of 434 WRs0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
  7. Tim Wilson Jr.WR31 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 234th of 434 WRs0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
  8. Kahale WarringTE48 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 17th of 204 TEs0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.16
Every player (10)
  1. Parker HoustonTE16 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 53rd of 204 TEs0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
  2. Brandon HeicklenP65 plays · +0.026 pts/play · 75th of 91 punters0.03WAR−0.05 to 0.14
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
1.37WAR
74th of 130
Running backs
1.01WAR
29th of 130
Receivers
0.21WAR
101st of 130
Tight ends
0.11WAR
13th of 130
Kicker
0.17WAR
9th of 130
Punter
0.03WAR
75th of 130
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
−2.31/game
129th of 130
Front seven
+1.37/game
22nd of 130
Secondary
+0.94/game
39th of 130

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, 2018
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 473, 79th of 130 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 153, 75th of 130 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 46%, 97th of 129 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +6.0, 47th 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
+9.6points per game

San Diego State's SP+ of +6.0 is 9.6 points above the −3.6 its roster talent predicts, 17th of 130 in FBS.

Offense−0.6
Defense+8.6

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

−200+205001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingOhio State: talent 984, SP+ +24.1 (−5.5 vs. talent)Alabama: talent 979, SP+ +36.3 (+7.3 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 964, SP+ +32.9 (+5.1 vs. talent)USC: talent 934, SP+ +9.7 (−15.5 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 893, SP+ +29.7 (+7.8 vs. talent)LSU: talent 890, SP+ +24.2 (+2.6 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 889, SP+ +1.4 (−20.1 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 862, SP+ +22.0 (+2.5 vs. talent)Texas: talent 861, SP+ +11.3 (−8.1 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 848, SP+ +20.7 (+2.3 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 844, SP+ +24.9 (+6.8 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 834, SP+ +19.0 (+1.7 vs. talent)Florida: talent 832, SP+ +23.0 (+5.8 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 827, SP+ +23.6 (+6.8 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 827, SP+ +5.5 (−11.3 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 806, SP+ +21.6 (+6.4 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 787, SP+ +13.0 (−0.9 vs. talent)Washington: talent 773, SP+ +19.9 (+7.0 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 754, SP+ −0.4 (−12.1 vs. talent)Miami: talent 754, SP+ +12.7 (+1.1 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 750, SP+ +14.9 (+3.5 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 734, SP+ +9.8 (−0.5 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 730, SP+ +23.2 (+13.1 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 726, SP+ +3.0 (−6.8 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 711, SP+ +5.4 (−3.5 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 696, SP+ +7.3 (−0.6 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 695, SP+ +4.5 (−3.3 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 688, SP+ −2.5 (−9.9 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 688, SP+ +5.0 (−2.4 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 676, SP+ +3.9 (−2.8 vs. talent)TCU: talent 672, SP+ +6.9 (+0.5 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 670, SP+ +13.1 (+6.8 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 668, SP+ +2.0 (−4.2 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 659, SP+ +11.5 (+5.8 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 654, SP+ +15.5 (+10.1 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 647, SP+ +13.2 (+8.2 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 645, SP+ +13.8 (+8.9 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 638, SP+ +2.7 (−1.8 vs. talent)Duke: talent 636, SP+ +5.0 (+0.7 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 632, SP+ −9.1 (−13.3 vs. talent)NC State: talent 629, SP+ +9.4 (+5.4 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 615, SP+ +13.3 (+10.1 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 612, SP+ +7.6 (+4.6 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 609, SP+ +1.9 (−1.0 vs. talent)California: talent 596, SP+ +3.9 (+1.7 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 595, SP+ +20.8 (+18.7 vs. talent)Utah: talent 595, SP+ +16.8 (+14.7 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 589, SP+ +6.3 (+4.5 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 583, SP+ +0.3 (−1.2 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 581, SP+ +3.6 (+2.2 vs. talent)Houston: talent 577, SP+ +2.3 (+1.1 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 576, SP+ +7.9 (+6.8 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 576, SP+ −0.7 (−1.8 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 570, SP+ +7.5 (+6.6 vs. talent)UCF: talent 568, SP+ +16.5 (+15.7 vs. talent)BYU: talent 566, SP+ +6.2 (+5.6 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 564, SP+ +1.6 (+1.0 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 563, SP+ −7.9 (−8.4 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 562, SP+ +8.7 (+8.3 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 555, SP+ −12.3 (−12.4 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 555, SP+ +11.3 (+11.2 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 549, SP+ −1.2 (−1.0 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 547, SP+ −0.5 (−0.2 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 544, SP+ +5.4 (+5.8 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 543, SP+ +12.2 (+12.7 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 542, SP+ +7.1 (+7.6 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 538, SP+ −0.8 (−0.1 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 535, SP+ −16.0 (−15.2 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 533, SP+ +2.4 (+3.3 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 525, SP+ +3.6 (+4.9 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 520, SP+ +6.5 (+8.0 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 517, SP+ −10.0 (−8.3 vs. talent)SMU: talent 485, SP+ −5.4 (−2.3 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 480, SP+ +9.2 (+12.5 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 480, SP+ −10.3 (−7.0 vs. talent)Temple: talent 478, SP+ +2.9 (+6.3 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 478, SP+ −6.9 (−3.5 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 477, SP+ −7.4 (−4.0 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 464, SP+ +2.0 (+6.0 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 459, SP+ +17.4 (+21.6 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 452, SP+ +1.0 (+5.5 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 445, SP+ −3.5 (+1.2 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 442, SP+ −10.7 (−5.9 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 434, SP+ −14.9 (−9.8 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 434, SP+ +1.2 (+6.3 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 432, SP+ −0.5 (+4.7 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 432, SP+ −2.7 (+2.5 vs. talent)San José State: talent 431, SP+ −17.1 (−11.8 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 421, SP+ −0.7 (+4.9 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 414, SP+ −3.8 (+2.1 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 414, SP+ −20.0 (−14.1 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 412, SP+ −9.5 (−3.6 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 405, SP+ −22.1 (−15.9 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 404, SP+ −20.4 (−14.2 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 401, SP+ −11.1 (−4.8 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 394, SP+ −17.7 (−11.1 vs. talent)UConn: talent 389, SP+ −26.4 (−19.7 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 389, SP+ −16.1 (−9.4 vs. talent)UAB: talent 388, SP+ −0.3 (+6.5 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 387, SP+ −5.0 (+1.8 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 377, SP+ +14.2 (+21.3 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 377, SP+ −6.9 (+0.2 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 375, SP+ −22.0 (−14.8 vs. talent)Rice: talent 375, SP+ −26.4 (−19.2 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 369, SP+ −1.1 (+6.3 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 369, SP+ +2.1 (+9.5 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 368, SP+ −11.2 (−3.8 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 362, SP+ −18.9 (−11.3 vs. talent)Akron: talent 361, SP+ −19.3 (−11.7 vs. talent)App State: talent 356, SP+ +11.9 (+19.7 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 353, SP+ −16.1 (−8.2 vs. talent)Troy: talent 352, SP+ +2.6 (+10.5 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 352, SP+ −20.4 (−12.5 vs. talent)Navy: talent 349, SP+ −10.2 (−2.2 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 348, SP+ +1.9 (+9.9 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 346, SP+ +4.0 (+12.1 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 346, SP+ −26.6 (−18.5 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 344, SP+ −2.0 (+6.2 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 344, SP+ −10.4 (−2.2 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 333, SP+ −14.1 (−5.6 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 327, SP+ −10.9 (−2.2 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 311, SP+ −18.5 (−9.4 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 303, SP+ −2.4 (+6.9 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 303, SP+ −16.4 (−7.1 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 284, SP+ −17.2 (−7.4 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 249, SP+ −20.2 (−9.7 vs. talent)Army: talent 231, SP+ −1.5 (+9.4 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 186, SP+ −1.8 (+9.9 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 94, SP+ −19.7 (−7.1 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 473, SP+ +6.0, expected −3.6San Diego State
One dot per FBS team, 2018. 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, 2018
Made the numbers' call

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

72 of 10668%116th of 130
FBS median 75%
Win probability given up

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

1.4 ptsper game87th of 130
0.19 expected wins over 13 games, FBS median 1.1 pts
When going was clearly right

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

6 of 875%
FBS teams went 64%

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.19 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 NEVQ4 5:07 4th & 7 at NEV 41, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
  2. vs SACQ4 5:59 4th & 9 at SAC 38, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
  3. vs HAWQ2 5:01 4th & 1 at SDSU 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
  4. vs ASUQ4 11:34 4th & 4 at ASU 19, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
  5. vs SJSUQ4 0:51 4th & 2 at SDSU 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
  6. at UNMQ3 12:09 4th & 3 at SDSU 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
  7. vs EMUQ3 3:57 4th & 2 at SDSU 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
  8. at OHIOQ2 6:16 4th & 1 at SDSU 32, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
Every call this season (106)
Wk 1 · at STAN · L 10-318 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 9:554th & 13 at SDSU 17, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 11:224th & 13 at SDSU 27, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 5:574th & 10 at SDSU 23, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 15:004th & 22 at SDSU 13, down 2 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 6:494th & 9 at STAN 13, down 9 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 4:384th & 17 at SDSU 20, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 15:004th & 1 at STAN 32, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 10:544th & 20 at SDSU 47, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 2 · vs SAC · W 28-142 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 13:484th & 9 at SDSU 30, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 1:394th & 16 at SAC 35, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 13:334th & 9 at SAC 35, up 7 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q2 0:554th & 3 at SAC 14, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 8:544th & 5 at SAC 40, down 1 · PuntedClose call
  6. Q4 5:594th & 9 at SAC 38, down 1 · Went for it−1.9 pts
Wk 3 · vs ASU · W 28-216 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 3 at SDSU 48, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 7:574th & 18 at SDSU 21, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 4:254th & 1 at SDSU 19, tied · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 15:004th & 2 at ASU 18, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q2 5:584th & 11 at SDSU 46, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 7:464th & 11 at ASU 37, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q3 6:014th & 14 at ASU 45, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 15:004th & 1 at ASU 39, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q4 11:344th & 4 at ASU 19, up 3 · Kicked a field goalClose call
Wk 4 · vs EMU · W 23-205 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 1 at EMU 38, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 6:144th & 11 at EMU 17, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q3 6:054th & 7 at EMU 18, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 3:574th & 2 at SDSU 35, tied · PuntedClose call
  5. Q4 13:414th & 16 at EMU 42, tied · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 1:164th & 11 at EMU 33, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 6 · at BOIS · W 19-139 of 11 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 8 at SDSU 27, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 12:484th & 6 at SDSU 46, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 9:144th & 5 at BOIS 19, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q1 6:484th & 19 at SDSU 46, down 4 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 13:094th & 24 at BOIS 24, down 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q2 7:054th & 14 at SDSU 20, down 1 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 11:584th & 15 at SDSU 25, up 6 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 3:374th & 1 at SDSU 47, up 6 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q3 2:014th & 6 at SDSU 5, up 6 · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q4 7:404th & 3 at SDSU 24, up 12 · PuntedClose call
  11. Q4 2:094th & 5 at SDSU 40, up 6 · PuntedClose call
Wk 7 · vs AF · W 21-177 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 9:114th & 12 at SDSU 20, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 5:524th & 6 at SDSU 17, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 3:354th & 10 at SDSU 6, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 2:294th & 10 at AF 26, down 2 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 10:404th & 9 at AF 43, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 5:504th & 9 at AF 41, up 5 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 14:094th & 13 at SDSU 3, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 3:484th & 21 at SDSU 44, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 8 · vs SJSU · W 16-135 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 24 at SDSU 27, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 15:004th & 2 at SJSU 6, down 6 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 10:044th & 1 at SDSU 21, up 1 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 0:164th & 7 at SJSU 19, up 1 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 7:094th & 5 at SJSU 5, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q4 13:474th & 8 at SJSU 42, tied · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 4:364th & 9 at SJSU 34, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 0:514th & 2 at SDSU 44, up 3 · PuntedClose call
Wk 9 · at NEV · L 24-285 of 8 agreed
  1. Q2 15:004th & 2 at SDSU 28, up 5 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 11:394th & 8 at SDSU 13, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 4:194th & 8 at NEV 9, down 1 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 11:394th & 21 at SDSU 14, up 2 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 5:094th & 9 at SDSU 41, down 1 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 14:114th & 8 at NEV 43, down 1 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 5:074th & 7 at NEV 41, down 4 · Punted−4.3 pts
  8. Q4 2:424th & 10 at NEV 41, down 4 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 10 · at UNM · W 31-236 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 10:284th & 1 at UNM 37, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 15:004th & 19 at SDSU 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 12:314th & 7 at SDSU 42, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 1:334th & 5 at UNM 49, down 3 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 12:094th & 3 at SDSU 46, down 3 · PuntedClose call
  6. Q3 6:204th & 8 at SDSU 12, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 2:154th & 8 at SDSU 27, down 2 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 2:564th & 5 at UNM 15, down 2 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 11 · vs UNLV · L 24-275 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 2 at SDSU 33, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 7:084th & 1 at SDSU 34, down 6 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 10:304th & 23 at SDSU 41, down 6 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 3:564th & 1 at UNLV 40, down 6 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q2 0:284th & 1 at UNLV 2, down 6 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q3 9:554th & 8 at UNLV 17, up 1 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q3 4:514th & 4 at UNLV 15, up 1 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  8. Q4 6:134th & 8 at UNLV 42, up 5 · PuntedClose call
Wk 12 · at FRES · L 14-235 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 14:524th & 1 at SDSU 39, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 8:534th & 4 at SDSU 47, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q1 4:064th & 16 at SDSU 20, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 14:214th & 5 at FRES 29, tied · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q2 2:184th & 6 at SDSU 7, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 10:504th & 3 at SDSU 24, down 3 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q3 2:164th & 5 at FRES 30, down 3 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  8. Q4 12:334th & 5 at SDSU 15, down 9 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 3:114th & 9 at SDSU 38, down 9 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 13 · vs HAW · L 30-316 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 2 at SDSU 48, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 7:274th & 17 at SDSU 28, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 14:464th & 1 at HAW 4, up 4 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 5:014th & 1 at SDSU 39, down 3 · Punted−1.5 pts
  5. Q2 0:534th & 4 at SDSU 41, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 10:294th & 10 at HAW 34, down 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q3 9:384th & 8 at HAW 42, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 15:004th & 21 at SDSU 31, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 6:074th & 1 at HAW 13, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
DXL Frisco Bowl · at OHIO · L 0-273 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 9:104th & 10 at SDSU 45, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 14:524th & 2 at SDSU 38, down 3 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 6:164th & 1 at SDSU 32, down 10 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 1:014th & 18 at SDSU 23, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 6:564th & 6 at OHIO 21, down 20 · Went for itClose call
  6. Q4 14:434th & 10 at SDSU 25, down 20 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 9:554th & 6 at SDSU 26, down 27 · Went for itClose call
  8. Q4 6:084th & 3 at OHIO 17, down 27 · Went for itClose call
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

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

26 of 2990%
FBS median 91%
Win probability given up

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

1.5 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.8 pts
When two was clearly right

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

-
Went for two 3 times, converted 2
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. vs AFQ4 6:10 Touchdown, up 3 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.7 pts
  2. vs SACQ4 2:08 Touchdown, up 13 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.4 pts
  3. vs ASUQ4 4:14 Touchdown, up 12 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.4 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, 2018
7-6vs. 7.8 expected−0.8 wins

95th of 130 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. L
  2. W
  3. W
  4. W
  5. W
  6. W
  7. W
  8. L
  9. W
  10. L
  11. L
  12. L
  13. L
What moved it, 2018
+1.3 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
−0.7 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+0.13
  • Possession & field position+0.12
  • Clock+0.21
  • Timeouts−0.35
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.85
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, 2018

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

Biggest swings of 2018

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