Stanford

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.027th
  Defense+0.2215th
• 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.
  Offense40.1%25th
  Defense46.6%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2124th
  Defense+1.3229th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0120th
  Defense+0.0947th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.057th
  Defense+0.329th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%38th
  Defense52.0%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.5%13th
  Defense34.3%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7213th
  Defense2.9259th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.0%5th
  Defense20.6%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.1%2nd
  Defense14.4%26th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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 Stanford 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
   TCU
2. W
   CP
3. W
   SYR
4. L
   CLEM
5. L
   VT
6. L
   ND
7. L
   SMU
8. L
   WAKE
9. L
   NCSU
10. W
    LOU
11. L
    CAL
12. L
    SJSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Stanford.

Players, 2024

1. Ashton DanielsQB374 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 62nd of 232 QBs
   1.41WAR0.74 to 2.01
2. Justin LamsonQB67 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 148th of 232 QBs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.48
3. Elic AyomanorWR64 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 14th of 452 WRs
   0.27WAR0.13 to 0.40
4. Micah FordRB78 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 176th of 373 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
5. Emmett Mosley VWR54 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 68th of 452 WRs
   0.17WAR0.04 to 0.28
6. Aidan FlintoftP34 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 35th of 106 punters
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
7. Emmet KenneyPK14 plays · +0.324 pts/play · 53rd of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Sam RoushTE34 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 41st of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14

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 Stanford'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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71971942nd of 131Roster talent: 719, 42nd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820832nd of 131Recruiting: 208, 32nd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%11th of 130Returning production: 85%, 11th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.2−8.299th of 131SP+ rating: −8.2, 99th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 Stanford'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 0.14 of the 0.17 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 SYRQ4 0:20 4th & 9 at SYR 45, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−9.5 pts
2. at CALQ3 5:30 4th & 8 at CAL 18, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
3. at CALQ4 7:45 4th & 5 at CAL 45, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs TCUQ4 13:40 4th & 5 at STAN 35, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
5. vs TCUQ4 2:14 4th & 16 at STAN 19, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs WAKEQ3 10:18 4th & 2 at STAN 26, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at CALQ2 12:58 4th & 3 at STAN 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at CALQ4 2:14 4th & 15 at STAN 20, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

94th of 134 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   TCU
2. W

   CP
3. W

   SYR
4. L

   CLEM
5. L

   VT
6. L

   ND
7. L

   SMU
8. L

   WAKE
9. L

   NCSU
10. W

    LOU
11. L

    CAL
12. L

    SJSU

What moved it, 2024

Every game starts at Stanford'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−1.59
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.83

Game by game

• TCUL 27-34 vs TCU34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• CPW 41-7 vs CP98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• SYRW 26-24 at SYR32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• CLEML 14-40 at CLEM7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• VTL 7-31 vs VT29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• NDL 7-49 at ND9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• SMUL 10-40 vs SMU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• WAKEL 24-27 vs WAKE50% → 6%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• NCSUL 28-59 at NCSU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32
• LOUW 38-35 vs LOU14% → 96%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• CALL 21-24 at CAL18% → 4%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• SJSUL 31-34 at SJSU54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Stanford's side.

Closest call

STAN 46-43 COLO (2023) - Stanford dropped to a 0.9% win probability before pulling it out.