Try the model

San Diego State

Aztecs · Pac-12 · FBS
12-22021 · 7-2 in conference
SP+
+8.3 (#50)
FPI
0.0 (#72)
SRS
+5.2 (#48)
Final AP
#25
Resume
#14

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, 2021
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.09, 26th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 39.4%, 19th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.23, 36th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.10, 40th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.12, 22nd percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 45.0%, 19th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 27.8%, 17th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.96, 35th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 18.8%, 26th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 15.1%, 60th percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: −0.01, 93rd percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 36.0%, 95th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.19, 80th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: −0.13, 99th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.11, 81st percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 41.1%, 96th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 27.0%, 81st percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.63, 93rd percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 23.2%, 97th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 19.7%, 88th 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, 2021
Per drive

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

Offense−0.0487th of 130
Defense−0.60allowed11th of 130
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense−0.1590th of 130
Defense−0.31allowed19th of 130
Finishing

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

Offense+0.023.8 pts/trip55th of 130
Defense−0.033.7 pts/trip allowed74th of 130
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.2412th of 130
Defense0.83opponents12th 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, 2021
The quarterback
Lucas Johnson: 0.78 WAR (90% interval 0.36 to 1.18)
102nd of 219 FBS QBs in WAR · 131st of 168 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. Lucas JohnsonQB239 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 102nd of 219 QBs0.78WAR0.36 to 1.18
  2. Greg BellRB202 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 31st of 387 RBs0.73WAR0.52 to 0.92
  3. Jordon BrookshireQB132 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 138th of 219 QBs0.45WAR0.21 to 0.67
  4. Matt AraizaPK89 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 1st of 128 kickers0.33WAR0.19 to 0.50
  5. Jesse MatthewsWR56 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 86th of 474 WRs0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
  6. Chance BellRB45 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 252nd of 387 RBs0.15WAR0.10 to 0.19
  7. Elijah KotheWR34 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 195th of 474 WRs0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
  8. Kaegun WilliamsRB36 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 283rd of 387 RBs0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
Every player (12)
  1. Jordan ByrdRB32 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 298th of 387 RBs0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
  2. Tyrell ShaversWR22 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 345th of 474 WRs0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
  3. BJ BusbeeWR18 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 369th of 474 WRs0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
  4. Daniel BellingerTE30 plays · +0.010 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs0.01WAR−0.04 to 0.05
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
1.23WAR
92nd of 130
Running backs
1.07WAR
35th of 130
Receivers
0.41WAR
55th of 130
Tight ends
0.01WAR
38th of 130
Kicker
0.33WAR
1st of 130
Punter
0.00WAR
97th of 130
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
−1.30/game
121st of 130
Front seven
+2.89/game
6th of 130
Secondary
+2.58/game
18th 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

Transfer portal, 2021

2 players transferred in and 9 out. WAR is each one's 2020 season, before the move. Every team's portal

Brought in
0.00WAR
67th most of 130
FBS median 0.02
Lost
0.16WAR
82nd least of 130
FBS median 0.06
Net
−0.16WAR
101st of 130
FBS median 0.00

In 2021, the arrivals have added 0.06 WAR at San Diego State and the departures 0.00 wherever they went.

Arrivals (2)20202021
  1. Tyrell ShaversWR · 3★from Mississippi State-0.06
The other 1
  1. Jalen MaydenDUAL · 4★from Mississippi State--
Departures (9)20202021
  1. Carson BakerQB · 3★to Western Kentucky0.15-
  2. Nolan GivanTE · 3★to SE Louisiana0.00-
The other 7
  1. Eric WilsonCB · 3★to undecided--
  2. Jeffrey BlakeLB · 3★to New Mexico--
  3. Kaelin HimphillLB · 3★to undecided--
  4. Kobah FuamatuLB · 3★to undecided--
  5. Zidane ThomasRB · 3★to undecided--
  6. Charlie RogersTE · 2★to San José State--
  7. Mark SalazarQB · 2★to undecided--

Only quarterbacks, skill players and specialists have a WAR of their own, so they make up these totals; linemen and defenders count in the moves but add none. 2020 is the player's season at his old school, 2021 his season after the move. A dash means no FBS snaps that season. Rosters tie CFBD's portal entries to players, which works for about 19 in 20 skill-position moves.

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, 2021
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 442, 95th of 130 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 155, 78th of 130 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 86%, 37th 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: +8.3, 50th 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
+13.9points per game

San Diego State's SP+ of +8.3 is 13.9 points above the −5.6 its roster talent predicts, 14th of 130 in FBS.

Offense−1.5
Defense+13.5

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

−200+2005001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 1004, SP+ +26.0 (−3.4 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 1002, SP+ +32.0 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 985, SP+ +29.3 (+1.5 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 935, SP+ +18.7 (−4.9 vs. talent)LSU: talent 904, SP+ +4.1 (−17.0 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 895, SP+ +16.8 (−3.6 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 888, SP+ +21.1 (+1.3 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 886, SP+ +10.2 (−9.4 vs. talent)Florida: talent 886, SP+ +11.0 (−8.6 vs. talent)USC: talent 875, SP+ −0.6 (−19.4 vs. talent)Texas: talent 874, SP+ +8.5 (−10.3 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 853, SP+ +17.4 (+0.2 vs. talent)Miami: talent 841, SP+ +10.8 (−5.5 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 840, SP+ +11.0 (−5.2 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 833, SP+ +23.4 (+7.7 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 821, SP+ +14.3 (−0.5 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 798, SP+ +6.4 (−6.8 vs. talent)Washington: talent 790, SP+ −0.7 (−13.3 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 781, SP+ +17.5 (+5.5 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 770, SP+ +7.6 (−3.7 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 751, SP+ +20.1 (+10.0 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 748, SP+ +3.9 (−6.0 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 746, SP+ +9.4 (−0.3 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 745, SP+ −10.2 (−19.9 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 744, SP+ +10.3 (+0.7 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 734, SP+ +11.8 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 732, SP+ +14.8 (+6.0 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 723, SP+ +13.8 (+5.5 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 716, SP+ +10.5 (+2.6 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 709, SP+ +13.4 (+6.0 vs. talent)Utah: talent 708, SP+ +15.2 (+7.9 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 707, SP+ −6.7 (−14.0 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 706, SP+ +6.2 (−1.0 vs. talent)NC State: talent 700, SP+ +16.1 (+9.2 vs. talent)TCU: talent 699, SP+ −0.6 (−7.4 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 677, SP+ +11.2 (+5.7 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 669, SP+ +17.6 (+12.6 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 664, SP+ −7.8 (−12.6 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 664, SP+ +2.4 (−2.3 vs. talent)California: talent 662, SP+ +3.4 (−1.3 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 661, SP+ +15.6 (+11.0 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 657, SP+ +11.4 (+7.0 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 653, SP+ +14.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 649, SP+ −11.1 (−15.0 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 648, SP+ +3.1 (−0.7 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 644, SP+ +10.3 (+6.6 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 641, SP+ −10.0 (−13.5 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 641, SP+ +8.9 (+5.4 vs. talent)UCF: talent 639, SP+ +4.8 (+1.4 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 636, SP+ +0.9 (−2.3 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 630, SP+ +4.3 (+1.4 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 627, SP+ +21.2 (+18.5 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 620, SP+ +7.2 (+4.9 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 614, SP+ +17.2 (+15.2 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 614, SP+ +14.3 (+12.3 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 611, SP+ +1.8 (−0.1 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 610, SP+ −19.4 (−21.2 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 608, SP+ +7.8 (+6.1 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 607, SP+ +9.8 (+8.1 vs. talent)Duke: talent 606, SP+ −13.5 (−15.1 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 601, SP+ +6.7 (+5.3 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 589, SP+ +10.1 (+9.3 vs. talent)SMU: talent 576, SP+ +8.9 (+8.8 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 573, SP+ −3.0 (−3.0 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 572, SP+ +1.0 (+1.1 vs. talent)Houston: talent 571, SP+ +10.9 (+11.0 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 570, SP+ +14.2 (+14.4 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 568, SP+ −12.6 (−12.3 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 567, SP+ +0.3 (+0.6 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 558, SP+ +9.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 553, SP+ −5.2 (−4.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 548, SP+ −19.7 (−18.5 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 541, SP+ −12.1 (−10.5 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 525, SP+ +13.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 521, SP+ −21.6 (−19.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 520, SP+ −11.6 (−9.1 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 516, SP+ +0.5 (+3.2 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 509, SP+ +6.5 (+9.5 vs. talent)Temple: talent 501, SP+ −19.1 (−15.8 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 496, SP+ −6.5 (−3.0 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 494, SP+ −4.0 (−0.4 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 484, SP+ +10.8 (+14.8 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 476, SP+ −17.9 (−13.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 470, SP+ +5.8 (+10.3 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 466, SP+ −14.2 (−9.5 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 465, SP+ +6.9 (+11.6 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 463, SP+ −3.9 (+0.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 463, SP+ −13.7 (−8.9 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 457, SP+ +8.0 (+13.1 vs. talent)App State: talent 450, SP+ +10.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Troy: talent 449, SP+ −6.5 (−1.1 vs. talent)UAB: talent 444, SP+ +9.1 (+14.6 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 443, SP+ −2.4 (+3.2 vs. talent)BYU: talent 443, SP+ +8.9 (+14.5 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 436, SP+ +8.7 (+14.5 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 428, SP+ −16.0 (−9.9 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 422, SP+ +3.6 (+9.9 vs. talent)Rice: talent 420, SP+ −22.9 (−16.5 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 416, SP+ +13.2 (+19.7 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 415, SP+ −7.2 (−0.6 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 414, SP+ +1.8 (+8.4 vs. talent)San José State: talent 411, SP+ −1.9 (+4.8 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 409, SP+ −7.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 397, SP+ −2.3 (+4.9 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 396, SP+ +0.6 (+7.8 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 394, SP+ +0.1 (+7.4 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 392, SP+ −13.8 (−6.5 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 384, SP+ −15.3 (−7.7 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 381, SP+ −12.4 (−4.7 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 378, SP+ +1.5 (+9.3 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 361, SP+ −18.6 (−10.3 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 358, SP+ −6.4 (+2.0 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 354, SP+ −7.1 (+1.4 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 341, SP+ −7.8 (+1.0 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 338, SP+ −11.2 (−2.3 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 332, SP+ −11.6 (−2.5 vs. talent)UConn: talent 332, SP+ −25.6 (−16.5 vs. talent)Akron: talent 331, SP+ −23.1 (−14.0 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 327, SP+ +0.6 (+9.8 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 319, SP+ −4.2 (+5.2 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 312, SP+ −20.3 (−10.7 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 269, SP+ −1.0 (+9.6 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 267, SP+ −9.5 (+1.1 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 227, SP+ −29.3 (−18.0 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 155, SP+ +8.4 (+20.7 vs. talent)Navy: talent 128, SP+ −8.5 (+4.1 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 117, SP+ −24.2 (−11.6 vs. talent)Army: talent 112, SP+ +4.7 (+17.4 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 30, SP+ +7.4 (+20.3 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 442, SP+ +8.3, expected −5.6San Diego State
One dot per FBS team, 2021. 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, 2021
Made the numbers' call

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

87 of 12470%116th of 130
FBS median 77%
Win probability given up

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

1.3 ptsper game92nd of 130
0.18 expected wins over 14 games, FBS median 1.0 pts
When going was clearly right

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

6 of 1250%
FBS teams went 69%

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 0.18 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 BOISQ4 9:05 4th & 1 at SDSU 30, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
  2. vs FRESQ4 11:53 4th & 3 at FRES 43, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
  3. at AFQ4 10:32 4th & 4 at AF 40, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
  4. at HAWQ2 7:11 4th & 3 at HAW 36, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
  5. vs NEVQ2 0:00 4th & 5 at NEV 38, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
  6. vs UTAHQ4 14:55 4th & 3 at UTAH 31, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
  7. at HAWQ3 13:31 4th & 4 at HAW 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
  8. at HAWQ3 10:56 4th & 4 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
Every call this season (124)
Wk 1 · vs NMSU · W 28-107 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 12:014th & 13 at SDSU 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 6:144th & 8 at SDSU 38, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 8:364th & 12 at SDSU 34, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 5:084th & 6 at NMSU 41, down 10 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 3:164th & 28 at SDSU 20, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 6:324th & 14 at SDSU 21, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 11:414th & 9 at SDSU 45, up 18 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 7:114th & 12 at SDSU 9, up 18 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 3:314th & 1 at SDSU 38, up 18 · PuntedClose call
Wk 2 · at ARIZ · W 38-146 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 3:074th & 20 at SDSU 30, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 8:584th & 10 at ARIZ 47, up 21 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 4:064th & 6 at SDSU 39, up 21 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 12:014th & 9 at SDSU 28, up 28 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 11:034th & 7 at SDSU 34, up 28 · Went for itClose call
  6. Q3 5:134th & 15 at ARIZ 15, up 28 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 14:494th & 2 at SDSU 42, up 31 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 11:164th & 3 at SDSU 34, up 31 · PuntedClose call
  9. Q4 4:324th & 7 at ARIZ 36, up 24 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 3 · vs UTAH · W 33-318 of 11 agreed
  1. Q1 11:464th & 5 at SDSU 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 8:024th & 12 at SDSU 23, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 6:364th & 15 at SDSU 21, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q1 1:544th & 7 at UTAH 34, down 7 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q2 12:534th & 9 at SDSU 44, down 4 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q2 2:074th & 7 at SDSU 37, tied · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q2 0:064th & 8 at SDSU 39, tied · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 5:244th & 8 at SDSU 22, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 14:554th & 3 at UTAH 31, up 14 · Kicked a field goal−1.2 pts
  10. Q4 6:334th & 3 at SDSU 11, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  11. Q4 2:364th & 9 at SDSU 21, up 8 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 4 · vs TOW · W 48-215 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 13:324th & 5 at SDSU 30, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 3:394th & 15 at SDSU 20, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 1:464th & 2 at SDSU 33, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q3 6:394th & 10 at TOW 30, up 21 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q4 15:004th & 1 at TOW 40, up 31 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 7:444th & 10 at TOW 19, up 31 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 6 · vs UNM · W 31-75 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 6:294th & 10 at UNM 36, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 14:574th & 7 at UNM 23, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 11:234th & 2 at UNM 26, up 10 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 10:044th & 2 at UNM 37, up 10 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q3 13:074th & 9 at SDSU 9, up 17 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 10:174th & 3 at SDSU 30, up 17 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 9:444th & 6 at SDSU 42, up 24 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 3:304th & 1 at SDSU 20, up 24 · PuntedClose call
Wk 7 · at SJSU · W 19-139 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 7:194th & 7 at SDSU 23, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 14:144th & 6 at SDSU 43, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 11:164th & 15 at SJSU 36, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 6:004th & 6 at SJSU 48, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 0:544th & 3 at SJSU 9, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 10:364th & 12 at SJSU 38, up 3 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  7. Q3 5:054th & 7 at SDSU 11, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 13:324th & 17 at SDSU 12, tied · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 8:184th & 13 at SDSU 9, tied · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q4 3:234th & 18 at SDSU 42, tied · PuntedAgreed
Wk 8 · at AF · W 20-145 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 12:264th & 5 at AF 5, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q1 5:254th & 4 at SDSU 7, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 2:104th & 2 at SDSU 48, up 3 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 12:184th & 1 at AF 6, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q2 1:544th & 15 at AF 34, up 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 6:044th & 12 at SDSU 25, up 20 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 10:324th & 4 at AF 40, up 13 · Punted−1.7 pts
  8. Q4 2:184th & 3 at SDSU 32, up 6 · PuntedClose call
Wk 9 · vs FRES · L 20-303 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 10:444th & 17 at FRES 47, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 11:534th & 8 at FRES 43, down 14 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 7:204th & 10 at FRES 48, down 17 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 14:014th & 3 at SDSU 45, down 13 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 8:034th & 10 at FRES 47, down 13 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 11:534th & 3 at FRES 43, down 10 · Punted−1.8 pts
Wk 10 · at HAW · W 17-105 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 7 at HAW 46, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 9:434th & 2 at HAW 13, tied · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 7:114th & 3 at HAW 36, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−1.3 pts
  4. Q2 3:144th & 9 at SDSU 21, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 13:314th & 4 at HAW 42, up 7 · Punted−1.1 pts
  6. Q3 10:564th & 4 at midfield, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 7:414th & 19 at HAW 22, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 1:164th & 11 at SDSU 22, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 11 · vs NEV · W 23-218 of 11 agreed
  1. Q1 14:044th & 7 at SDSU 25, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 9:214th & 1 at NEV 19, tied · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 9:354th & 2 at NEV 30, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q2 3:564th & 8 at SDSU 43, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 0:004th & 5 at NEV 38, up 3 · Kicked a field goal−1.2 pts
  6. Q3 5:064th & 12 at NEV 42, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 0:154th & 8 at SDSU 27, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 11:584th & 6 at NEV 22, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  9. Q4 8:244th & 5 at SDSU 38, down 1 · PuntedClose call
  10. Q4 4:334th & 4 at SDSU 36, down 1 · Went for itAgreed
  11. Q4 1:214th & 5 at NEV 17, down 1 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 12 · at UNLV · W 28-205 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 6:064th & 7 at SDSU 47, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 13:294th & 4 at SDSU 45, up 4 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 8:544th & 5 at midfield, up 4 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 0:314th & 2 at UNLV 46, up 4 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q3 12:424th & 15 at SDSU 35, up 11 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 6:374th & 24 at SDSU 5, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 10:354th & 7 at UNLV 45, up 1 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 5:354th & 1 at UNLV 13, up 1 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q4 0:014th & 2 at UNLV 41, up 8 · PuntedClose call
Wk 13 · vs BOIS · W 27-168 of 14 agreed
  1. Q1 12:274th & 16 at SDSU 28, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 12:274th & 16 at SDSU 28, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 8:064th & 5 at BOIS 31, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q1 8:064th & 5 at BOIS 31, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q1 1:104th & 10 at BOIS 14, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q2 13:584th & 8 at BOIS 39, down 4 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q2 10:554th & 8 at SDSU 27, down 10 · Went for itClose call
  8. Q2 5:434th & 5 at BOIS 48, down 13 · PuntedClose call
  9. Q3 15:004th & 1 at BOIS 49, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
  10. Q3 9:264th & 1 at BOIS 2, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
  11. Q3 2:104th & 24 at SDSU 19, up 11 · PuntedAgreed
  12. Q4 9:054th & 1 at SDSU 30, up 11 · Punted−2.2 pts
  13. Q4 3:594th & 20 at SDSU 20, up 11 · PuntedAgreed
  14. Q4 0:484th & 7 at BOIS 25, up 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 14 · vs USU · L 13-468 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 13:244th & 5 at SDSU 32, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 10:174th & 8 at SDSU 26, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 5:064th & 1 at USU 12, tied · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q1 3:264th & 7 at USU 49, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 13:354th & 13 at SDSU 26, tied · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q2 6:284th & 7 at USU 37, down 7 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  7. Q2 1:014th & 6 at USU 6, down 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 12:224th & 4 at SDSU 40, down 26 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q4 1:094th & 2 at USU 41, down 33 · Went for itClose call
  10. Q4 0:004th & 9 at USU 9, down 33 · Went for itAgreed
Tropical Smoothie Cafe Frisco Bowl · vs UTSA · W 38-245 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 10:114th & 10 at SDSU 32, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 0:184th & 7 at SDSU 29, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 11:104th & 4 at UTSA 36, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 2:484th & 3 at UTSA 32, tied · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q3 7:024th & 11 at midfield, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

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

40 of 4393%
FBS median 91%
Win probability given up

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

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

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

-
Went for two 1 time, converted 0
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. vs UTSAQ4 9:51 Touchdown, up 13 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.2 pts
  2. vs FRESQ3 0:13 Touchdown, down 10 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.2 pts
  3. vs UNMQ4 13:05 Touchdown, up 23 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, 2021
12-2vs. 9.0 expected+3.0 wins

7th 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. W
  2. W
  3. W
  4. W
  5. W
  6. W
  7. W
  8. L
  9. W
  10. W
  11. W
  12. W
  13. L
  14. W
What moved it, 2021
+2.0 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
+1.3 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+1.45
  • Possession & field position+0.04
  • Clock+0.22
  • Timeouts+0.08
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.45
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, 2021

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

Biggest swings of 2021

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