San José State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.073rd
  Defense+0.239th
• 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.
  Offense36.8%4th
  Defense47.8%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1949th
  Defense+1.1471st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.123rd
  Defense+0.225th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0312th
  Defense+0.2619th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.4%2nd
  Defense51.9%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.
  Offense30.5%27th
  Defense36.7%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6825th
  Defense3.325th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%33rd
  Defense13.7%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.2%2nd
  Defense12.2%5th

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.

Drives vs. expectation, 2017

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
   USF
2. W
   CP
3. L
   TEX
4. L
   UTAH
5. L
   USU
6. L
   UNLV
7. L
   FRES
8. L
   HAW
9. L
   BYU
10. L
    SDSU
11. L
    NEV
12. L
    CSU
13. W
    WYO

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

Players, 2017

1. Tyler NevensRB108 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 89th of 352 RBs
   0.32WAR0.24 to 0.40
2. Josh LoveQB108 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 173rd of 226 QBs
   0.22WAR0.03 to 0.42
3. Montel AaronQB127 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 177th of 226 QBs
   0.19WAR−0.01 to 0.41
4. Bryce CrawfordPK14 plays · +0.493 pts/play · 39th of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Zamore ZiglerCB25 plays · +0.154 pts/play
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
6. Michael CarrizosaP41 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 31st of 95 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.14
7. Justin HolmesWR22 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 356th of 426 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Tre HartleyWR33 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 357th of 426 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  37937990th of 130Roster talent: 379, 90th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13813881st of 130Recruiting: 138, 81st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%92nd of 128Returning production: 45%, 92nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.0−20.0123rd of 128SP+ rating: −20.0, 123rd of 128 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

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.16 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 WYOQ4 14:46 4th & 1 at SJSU 29, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.9 pts
2. vs WYOQ3 3:35 4th & 1 at SJSU 33, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
3. vs CPQ3 9:35 4th & 1 at SJSU 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
4. at HAWQ2 7:34 4th & 1 at SJSU 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
5. vs WYOQ4 7:18 4th & 9 at WYO 38, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
6. vs USFQ3 1:03 4th & 1 at SJSU 32, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
7. vs WYOQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at SJSU 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
8. vs USFQ2 5:57 4th & 1 at SJSU 34, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

72nd of 130 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

   USF
2. W

   CP
3. L

   TEX
4. L

   UTAH
5. L

   USU
6. L

   UNLV
7. L

   FRES
8. L

   HAW
9. L

   BYU
10. L

    SDSU
11. L

    NEV
12. L

    CSU
13. W

    WYO

What moved it, 2017

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−1.25
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.91

Game by game

• USFL 22-42 vs USF8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14, Clock −1
• CPW 34-13 vs CP81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +23
• TEXL 0-56 at TEX4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• UTAHL 16-54 at UTAH3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• USUL 10-61 vs USU43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −46, Possession & field position −1
• UNLVL 13-41 at UNLV13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• FRESL 10-27 vs FRES11% → 2%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −20
• HAWL 26-37 at HAW12% → 2%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18
• BYUL 20-41 at BYU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• SDSUL 7-52 vs SDSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• NEVL 14-59 at NEV13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• CSUL 14-42 at CSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• WYOW 20-17 vs WYO11% → 93%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2

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.