San José State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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−0.055th
  Defense+0.1436th
• 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.
  Offense35.4%5th
  Defense45.3%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2878th
  Defense+1.1956th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.162nd
  Defense+0.0651st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0216th
  Defense+0.2525th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.9%5th
  Defense49.6%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.9%5th
  Defense35.8%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.141st
  Defense3.0921st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.2%2nd
  Defense17.7%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%8th
  Defense13.3%8th

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, 2018

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
   UCD
2. L
   WSU
3. L
   ORE
4. L
   HAW
5. L
   CSU
6. L
   ARMY
7. L
   SDSU
8. W
   UNLV
9. L
   WYO
10. L
    USU
11. L
    NEV
12. L
    FRES

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

Players, 2018

1. Josh LoveQB211 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 112th of 225 QBs
   0.69WAR0.33 to 1.05
2. Tyler NevensRB114 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 107th of 351 RBs
   0.37WAR0.28 to 0.45
3. Michael CarrilloQB52 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 187th of 225 QBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.26
4. Malike RobersonRB44 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 264th of 351 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
5. Tre WalkerWR32 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 201st of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Bryce CrawfordPK9 plays · +0.472 pts/play · 81st of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
7. Josh OliverTE57 plays · +0.040 pts/play · 40th of 204 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.05 to 0.15
8. Tre HartleyWR36 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 367th of 434 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.01 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43143189th of 130Roster talent: 431, 89th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214282nd of 130Recruiting: 142, 82nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  99%99%3rd of 129Returning production: 99%, 3rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.1−17.1115th of 130SP+ rating: −17.1, 115th 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

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.06 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 HAWQ3 14:54 4th & 1 at SJSU 17, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs ARMYQ2 7:28 4th & 1 at SJSU 32, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs CSUQ2 13:34 4th & 27 at CSU 35, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs UCDQ1 3:58 4th & 2 at SJSU 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs ARMYQ2 11:54 4th & 5 at ARMY 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs CSUQ1 10:52 4th & 1 at SJSU 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs UCDQ2 2:40 4th & 7 at UCD 36, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at SDSUQ3 15:00 4th & 5 at SDSU 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

124th 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

   UCD
2. L

   WSU
3. L

   ORE
4. L

   HAW
5. L

   CSU
6. L

   ARMY
7. L

   SDSU
8. W

   UNLV
9. L

   WYO
10. L

    USU
11. L

    NEV
12. L

    FRES

What moved it, 2018

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−1.98
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.78

Game by game

• UCDL 38-44 vs UCD73% → 6%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −55, Clock −4
• WSUL 0-31 at WSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• OREL 22-35 at ORE1% → 1%Before kickoff −49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −4
• HAWL 41-44 vs HAW33% → 23%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −17
• CSUL 30-42 vs CSU51% → 2%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• ARMYL 3-52 vs ARMY16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• SDSUL 13-16 at SDSU7% → 11%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +4: Scoreboard −11, Possession & field position −1
• UNLVW 50-37 vs UNLV61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −1
• WYOL 9-24 at WYO16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• USUL 24-62 at USU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• NEVL 12-21 vs NEV18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• FRESL 13-31 at FRES3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7

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.