San José State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0734th
  Defense+0.1621st
• 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.
  Offense43.5%61st
  Defense42.1%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2239th
  Defense+1.2835th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0540th
  Defense+0.0745th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1235th
  Defense+0.2916th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.0%59th
  Defense48.3%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.0%65th
  Defense28.2%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0667th
  Defense3.0229th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%38th
  Defense14.0%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%49th
  Defense12.1%5th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   CMU
2. L
   TEX
3. W
   IDHO
4. L
   STAN
5. W
   UNM
6. L
   WYO
7. L
   USU
8. W
   HAW
9. L
   AF
10. L
    NEV
11. L
    SDSU
12. L
    FRES

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

Players, 2025

1. Walker EgetQB331 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 53rd of 231 QBs
   1.34WAR0.65 to 2.03
2. Danny ScuderoWR124 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 66th of 451 WRs
   0.21WAR−0.08 to 0.53
3. Steve Chavez-SotoRB80 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 141st of 365 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.22
4. Lamar RadcliffeRB61 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 204th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.10 to 0.16
5. Leland SmithWR63 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 176th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.20
6. Kyri ShoelsWR70 plays · +0.037 pts/play · 313th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.09 to 0.20
7. Jackson CanaanTE46 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 103rd of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.04 to 0.12
8. Matt ColemanWR20 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 353rd of 451 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  523523109th of 134Roster talent: 523, 109th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  136136101st of 134Recruiting: 136, 101st of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  33%33%69th of 132Returning production: 33%, 69th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.3−14.3116th of 134SP+ rating: −14.3, 116th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.12 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 STANQ3 3:50 4th & 1 at STAN 12, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. at USUQ4 0:29 4th & 9 at SJSU 29, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
3. vs UNMQ4 6:38 4th & 2 at UNM 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs UNMQ4 6:38 4th & 2 at UNM 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at WYOQ2 1:50 4th & 2 at SJSU 25, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs HAWQ4 12:57 4th & 2 at SJSU 28, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at USUQ4 0:04 4th & 2 at USU 37, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs AFQ4 5:43 4th & 3 at AF 16, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

134th of 136 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

   CMU
2. L

   TEX
3. W

   IDHO
4. L

   STAN
5. W

   UNM
6. L

   WYO
7. L

   USU
8. W

   HAW
9. L

   AF
10. L

    NEV
11. L

    SDSU
12. L

    FRES

What moved it, 2025

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−1.41
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.20
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.55

Game by game

• CMUL 14-16 vs CMU83% → 31%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• TEXL 7-38 at TEX1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• IDHOW 31-28 vs IDHO86% → 89%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +1
• STANL 29-30 at STAN40% → 22%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −2
• UNMW 35-28 vs UNM66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• WYOL 28-35 at WYO48% → 16%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position +1
• USUL 25-30 at USU41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +20
• HAWW 45-38 vs HAW57% → 92%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −3
• AFL 16-26 vs AF68% → 4%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• NEVL 10-55 at NEV75% → 0%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −62
• SDSUL 3-25 at SDSU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30
• FRESL 14-41 vs FRES43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts +1

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.