San José State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0524th
  Defense+0.2212th
• 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.
  Offense41.9%32nd
  Defense47.0%14th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2152nd
  Defense+1.1857th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0850th
  Defense+0.199th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0524th
  Defense+0.2913th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.4%34th
  Defense52.2%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%39th
  Defense34.4%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8536th
  Defense3.1913th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%34th
  Defense15.9%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.1%1st
  Defense15.4%37th

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.

Drives vs. expectation, 2016

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 José State allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   TLSA
2. W
   PRST
3. L
   UTAH
4. L
   ISU
5. L
   UNM
6. L
   HAW
7. W
   NEV
8. L
   SDSU
9. W
   UNLV
10. L
    BOIS
11. L
    AF
12. W
    FRES

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

Players, 2016

1. Kenny PotterQB342 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 45th of 218 QBs
   1.53WAR1.04 to 2.12
2. Deontae Cooper?79 plays · +0.178 pts/play
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.34
3. Tim CrawleyWR79 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 44th of 417 WRs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.34
4. Michael CarrizosaP48 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 9th of 82 punters
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.31
5. Malik RobersonRB97 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 166th of 347 RBs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.30
6. Zamore ZiglerCB47 plays · +0.189 pts/play
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
7. Bryce CrawfordPK16 plays · +0.325 pts/play · 57th of 116 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
8. Justin HolmesWR48 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 237th of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares San José State's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43743784th of 128Roster talent: 437, 84th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14314377th of 128Recruiting: 143, 77th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%77th of 128Returning production: 61%, 77th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.6−13.6112th of 128SP+ rating: −13.6, 112th 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

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016

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 José 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 0.17 of the 0.23 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 FRESQ4 1:36 4th & 7 at FRES 32, up 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−8.7 pts
2. at FRESQ3 4:24 4th & 1 at FRES 4, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. at FRESQ4 15:00 4th & 6 at FRES 40, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs HAWQ2 1:29 4th & 15 at HAW 35, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
5. vs NEVQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at SJSU 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs UNLVQ3 7:14 4th & 1 at SJSU 36, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at UNMQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at SJSU 34, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs UTAHQ3 5:48 4th & 2 at SJSU 28, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

81st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   TLSA
2. W

   PRST
3. L

   UTAH
4. L

   ISU
5. L

   UNM
6. L

   HAW
7. W

   NEV
8. L

   SDSU
9. W

   UNLV
10. L

    BOIS
11. L

    AF
12. W

    FRES

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at San José 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−1.01
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• TLSAL 10-45 at TLSA33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +1
• PRSTW 66-35 vs PRST72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29
• UTAHL 17-34 vs UTAH19% → 3%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −29
• ISUL 10-44 at ISU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +1
• UNML 41-48 at UNM34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• HAWL 17-34 vs HAW57% → 2%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• NEVW 14-10 vs NEV61% → 90%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• SDSUL 3-42 at SDSU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• UNLVW 30-24 vs UNLV43% → 96%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• BOISL 31-45 at BOIS4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −9
• AFL 38-41 vs AF24% → 7%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• FRESW 16-14 at FRES60% → 94%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3

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

Closest call

SJSU 38-21 UNM (2020) - San José State dropped to a 0.9% win probability before pulling it out.