Try the model

Syracuse

Orange · ACC · FBS
2-32026 · 0-3 in conference
SP+
−0.4 (#72)
FPI
+1.1 (#63)
SRS
+1.4 (#61)
Resume
#98

Next game

LOU
vs Louisville
Sat, Oct 17 · 7:30 PM EDT
Projected score
SYR24
LOU31
Win chance
25%
SYR 25%LOU 75%
Market: LOU favored by 15.3 · Points model v7, built without betting lines. A model's view, not betting advice.Full projection →

Season outlook

YardLine's points model projects every game left on the schedule, and the season is played out 50,000 times to see where the record could land. How it works →

Projected record, 2026
4.1projected wins of 12 · 2-3 through week 6
Bowl eligible
14%
Most likely
4-8
Wins out
<1%
Playoff odds<1%· Wins the ACC <1%The playoff race →
Final regular-season record, share of 50,000 simulated seasons · solid bar: the middle outcome
Games that decide it

Every game is worth one win, so the ones that shape Syracuse's record most are the ones closest to a coin flip.

Advanced stats

CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →

Profile vs. FBS, 2026
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.09, 34th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 41.8%, 36th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.34, 83rd percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.12, 50th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.17, 36th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 46.8%, 33rd percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 31.4%, 45th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.86, 27th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 17.8%, 48th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 13.0%, 72nd percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.06, 61st percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 41.7%, 42nd percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.18, 65th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.16, 20th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: −0.07, 93rd percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 50.0%, 23rd percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 27.0%, 65th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.78, 60th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 24.5%, 87th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 17.7%, 73rd percentile among FBS

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.
  • 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.
  • Explosiveness
    Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  • Rushing EPA
    EPA per designed run.
  • Passing EPA
    EPA per pass play.
  • Standard downs
    Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  • Passing downs
    Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  • Line yards
    Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  • Stuff rate
    Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  • Havoc
    Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.

Percentiles among the 138 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.

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2026
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense+0.5162nd of 138
Defense−0.25allowed55th of 138
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense+0.3155th of 138
Defense+0.14allowed64th of 138
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense−0.253.6 pts/trip89th of 138
Defense−0.173.7 pts/trip allowed78th of 138
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.1350th of 138
Defense1.01opponents81st of 138

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 Syracuse 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
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players

YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →

Players, 2026
The quarterback
Amari Odom: 0.15 WAR (90% interval 0.09 to 0.21)
112th of 192 FBS QBs in WAR

Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.

  1. Amari OdomQB41 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 112th of 192 QBs0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
  2. Umari HatcherWR47 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 16th of 364 WRs0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
  3. Steve AngeliQB84 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 129th of 192 QBs0.11WAR0.00 to 0.22
  4. Tylik HillRB50 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 65th of 320 RBs0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
  5. Ahmad MillerRB30 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 162nd of 320 RBs0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
  6. Justus Ross-SimmonsWR17 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 157th of 364 WRs0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
  7. Ju'Juan JohnsonRB34 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 205th of 320 RBs0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
  8. Daunte BacheyieTE12 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 27th of 164 TEs0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
Every player (12)
  1. Malachi NelsonQB34 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 183rd of 192 QBs0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.07
  2. Tripp WoodyPK5 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 60th of 82 kickers0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
  3. Cole WeaverWR5 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 292nd of 364 WRs0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
  4. Noah MeyersTE5 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
0.29WAR
70th of 138
Running backs
0.21WAR
37th of 138
Receivers
0.19WAR
32nd of 138
Tight ends
0.05WAR
22nd of 138
Kicker
0.02WAR
59th of 138
Punter
0.00WAR
66th of 138
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
−0.07/game
76th of 138
Front seven
−1.32/game
125th of 138
Secondary
+0.96/game
12th of 138

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 Syracuse'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

Transfer portal, 2026

20 players transferred in and 28 out. WAR is each one's 2025 season, before the move. Every team's portal

Brought in
1.93WAR
9th most of 138
FBS median 0.19
Lost
0.60WAR
95th least of 138
FBS median 0.33
Net
+1.33WAR
10th of 138
FBS median −0.05

So far in 2026, the arrivals have added 0.31 WAR at Syracuse and the departures 0.25 wherever they went.

Arrivals (20)20252026
  1. Amari OdomQB · 3★from Kennesaw State1.550.15
  2. Malachi NelsonQB · 3★from UTEP0.180.03
  3. Cole WeaverWR · 3★from Miami (OH)0.140.01
  4. Noah MeyersTE · 3★from Western Kentucky0.040.01
  5. Ju'Juan JohnsonRB · 3★from LSU0.020.04
  6. Ahmad MillerRB · 3★from Jackson State-0.06
The other 14
  1. Amare SnowdenCB · 3★from Toledo--
  2. Chris D'AppoloniaLB · 3★from Toledo--
  3. Danny LauterQB · 3★from Georgetown--
  4. David NdukweOT · 3★from Houston--
  5. Dillan FontusDL · 3★from Maryland--
  6. Elijah MooreWR · 3★from Florida State--
  7. Jai Eugene Jr.S · 3★from Western Kentucky--
  8. Jartavius FlounoyDL · 3★from Georgia State--
  9. Keyshawn JohnsonEDGE · 3★from UT Martin--
  10. Matt OuttenWR · 3★from Penn State--
  11. Michael SmithTE · 3★from South Carolina--
  12. Nazir WardCB · 3★from Western Kentucky--
  13. Oluwafunto AkinshiloIOL · 3★from UCLA--
  14. Tunmise AdeleyeDL · 3★from UNLV--
Departures (28)20252026
  1. Rickie CollinsQB · 4★to Kennesaw State0.210.20
  2. Yasin WillisRB · 3★to Kansas0.170.03
  3. Johntay Cook IIWR · 3★to Ole Miss0.130.02
  4. Darrell Gill Jr.WR · 4★to Ole Miss0.09-
The other 24
  1. Caden BrownEDGE · 3★to Florida A&M--
  2. Chase SimmonsDL · 3★to undecided--
  3. DeAngelo ThompsonEDGE · 3★to Memphis--
  4. Derek McDonaldLB · 3★to North Carolina--
  5. Emanuel RossWR · 3★to UConn--
  6. Eric ThomasDL · 3★to Memphis--
  7. Fatim DiggsLB · 3★to New Hampshire--
  8. Gabe DanielsWR · 3★to Tulane--
  9. Gregory Delaine Jr.CB · 3★to Georgia Southern--
  10. Ibn McDanielsCB · 3★to Penn State--
  11. Ja'Meer ThomasWR · 3★to undecided--
  12. Jaden HartRB · 3★to UConn--
  13. Jadyn OhK · 3★to Oregon State--
  14. Jahide Lesaine Jr.EDGE · 3★to Monmouth--
  15. Jakhari WilliamsQB · 3★to Southwest Mississippi C.C.--
  16. Jalil MartinS · 3★to UConn--
  17. James Heard Jr.LB · 3★to Mississippi State--
  18. Jaylan HornsbyWR · 3★to Purdue--
  19. Joshua MillerOT · 3★to Austin Peay--
  20. Kaylib SingletonCB · 3★to Mississippi State--
  21. Luke CarneyQB · 3★to Houston--
  22. Malachi JamesRB · 3★to Eastern Michigan--
  23. Quante GilliansDL · 3★to Temple--
  24. Ta'Ron HaileWR · 3★to Austin Peay--

Only quarterbacks, skill players and specialists have a WAR of their own, so they make up these totals; linemen and defenders count in the moves but add none. 2025 is the player's season at his old school, 2026 his season after the move, so far. A dash means no FBS snaps that season. Rosters tie CFBD's portal entries to players, which works for about 19 in 20 skill-position moves.

Talent and roster

How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →

What it had and what it did, 2026
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 746, 35th of 138 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 200, 50th of 138 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 35%, 81st of 136 in FBS
  • SP+ rating so far
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating so far: −0.4, 72nd of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far
−3.8points per game

Syracuse's SP+ of −0.4 is 3.8 points below the +3.4 its roster talent predicts, 94th of 138 in FBS.

Offense−4.3
Defense+0.5

The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both. In-season SP+ still leans on preseason expectations, so early numbers sit close to zero.

−200+205001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingGeorgia: talent 1004, SP+ +28.3 (+7.7 vs. talent)Texas: talent 985, SP+ +24.4 (+5.2 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 984, SP+ +21.0 (+1.9 vs. talent)Alabama: talent 974, SP+ +23.0 (+4.7 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 964, SP+ +29.5 (+11.9 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 953, SP+ +28.0 (+11.2 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 933, SP+ +8.0 (−7.3 vs. talent)LSU: talent 932, SP+ +21.7 (+6.5 vs. talent)USC: talent 899, SP+ +14.4 (+1.5 vs. talent)Florida: talent 891, SP+ +11.0 (−1.4 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 890, SP+ +13.1 (+0.8 vs. talent)Miami: talent 886, SP+ +27.8 (+15.8 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 886, SP+ +16.7 (+4.7 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 886, SP+ +15.9 (+3.9 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 863, SP+ +9.9 (−0.6 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 863, SP+ +2.2 (−8.3 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 851, SP+ +12.2 (+2.5 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 828, SP+ +11.0 (+2.7 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 808, SP+ +18.0 (+10.9 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 805, SP+ +12.6 (+5.8 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 800, SP+ +5.8 (−0.8 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 787, SP+ +16.9 (+11.1 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 787, SP+ +8.0 (+2.2 vs. talent)Washington: talent 778, SP+ +7.1 (+1.9 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 774, SP+ +15.3 (+10.2 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 774, SP+ +9.6 (+4.6 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 769, SP+ +9.5 (+4.8 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 768, SP+ +4.9 (+0.2 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 768, SP+ +21.6 (+16.9 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 768, SP+ +10.5 (+5.8 vs. talent)SMU: talent 765, SP+ +12.8 (+8.3 vs. talent)NC State: talent 757, SP+ −1.3 (−5.4 vs. talent)California: talent 752, SP+ −2.5 (−6.3 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 752, SP+ +1.3 (−2.5 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 745, SP+ −2.4 (−5.8 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 740, SP+ +13.0 (+9.9 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 735, SP+ +26.7 (+23.8 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 732, SP+ −2.4 (−5.1 vs. talent)TCU: talent 731, SP+ +9.2 (+6.6 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 729, SP+ +2.9 (+0.4 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 727, SP+ +1.2 (−1.3 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 723, SP+ +12.7 (+10.5 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 723, SP+ +13.0 (+10.8 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 722, SP+ +3.6 (+1.4 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 720, SP+ −2.0 (−4.0 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 719, SP+ +11.0 (+9.0 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 709, SP+ −5.3 (−6.8 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 708, SP+ −0.6 (−2.0 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 706, SP+ −14.9 (−16.2 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 704, SP+ +5.8 (+4.6 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 704, SP+ +0.6 (−0.6 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 700, SP+ +8.5 (+7.5 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 700, SP+ +15.2 (+14.2 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 698, SP+ +1.6 (+0.7 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 696, SP+ −0.9 (−1.7 vs. talent)Houston: talent 696, SP+ +15.2 (+14.4 vs. talent)Utah: talent 696, SP+ +23.5 (+22.7 vs. talent)BYU: talent 689, SP+ +21.5 (+21.0 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 688, SP+ +15.6 (+15.2 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 685, SP+ −1.2 (−1.5 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 685, SP+ +7.2 (+6.9 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 681, SP+ +10.5 (+10.4 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 675, SP+ +10.5 (+10.7 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 673, SP+ +13.3 (+13.6 vs. talent)UCF: talent 672, SP+ +4.1 (+4.4 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 670, SP+ +7.6 (+8.0 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 670, SP+ +1.0 (+1.5 vs. talent)Duke: talent 668, SP+ +8.2 (+8.7 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 665, SP+ −7.6 (−6.9 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 660, SP+ −4.9 (−4.0 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 656, SP+ +0.8 (+1.9 vs. talent)UConn: talent 653, SP+ −1.3 (0.0 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 641, SP+ +9.1 (+10.9 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 640, SP+ −7.8 (−6.0 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 636, SP+ +7.1 (+9.1 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 634, SP+ +5.3 (+7.4 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 634, SP+ −4.6 (−2.5 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 633, SP+ +7.3 (+9.4 vs. talent)Temple: talent 631, SP+ −6.5 (−4.3 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 630, SP+ −11.1 (−8.8 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 625, SP+ −0.2 (+2.3 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 624, SP+ −1.3 (+1.3 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 623, SP+ −5.1 (−2.5 vs. talent)App State: talent 622, SP+ −6.0 (−3.3 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 621, SP+ −6.4 (−3.7 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 612, SP+ −13.0 (−9.9 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 610, SP+ +3.7 (+6.9 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 609, SP+ −10.2 (−7.0 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 608, SP+ −5.4 (−2.1 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 606, SP+ −8.0 (−4.7 vs. talent)UAB: talent 606, SP+ −12.8 (−9.5 vs. talent)Jacksonville State: talent 603, SP+ −2.4 (+1.0 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 603, SP+ −18.3 (−14.8 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 602, SP+ −1.0 (+2.5 vs. talent)Troy: talent 596, SP+ −6.6 (−2.9 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 595, SP+ −13.2 (−9.4 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 593, SP+ +0.1 (+3.9 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 591, SP+ −2.3 (+1.6 vs. talent)Rice: talent 590, SP+ −13.4 (−9.4 vs. talent)James Madison: talent 588, SP+ +9.4 (+13.4 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 586, SP+ −24.6 (−20.5 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 581, SP+ −11.2 (−6.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 577, SP+ −28.6 (−24.1 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 574, SP+ −11.0 (−6.4 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 574, SP+ −4.8 (−0.2 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 573, SP+ −11.1 (−6.5 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 572, SP+ −3.2 (+1.5 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 572, SP+ −19.5 (−14.8 vs. talent)San José State: talent 569, SP+ −12.2 (−7.4 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 568, SP+ −17.9 (−13.1 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 568, SP+ +12.3 (+17.1 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 564, SP+ −25.2 (−20.2 vs. talent)Sacramento State: talent 561, SP+ −24.7 (−19.6 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 557, SP+ −12.9 (−7.6 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 556, SP+ −2.1 (+3.2 vs. talent)Sam Houston: talent 554, SP+ −16.5 (−11.1 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 550, SP+ −4.3 (+1.2 vs. talent)Missouri State: talent 550, SP+ −19.5 (−14.0 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 549, SP+ −13.9 (−8.4 vs. talent)Akron: talent 547, SP+ −22.4 (−16.8 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 544, SP+ −9.9 (−4.2 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 544, SP+ −9.0 (−3.3 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 543, SP+ −5.9 (−0.1 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 540, SP+ −16.7 (−10.8 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 537, SP+ −23.5 (−17.5 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 528, SP+ −13.8 (−7.5 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 526, SP+ −9.5 (−3.1 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 523, SP+ −6.7 (−0.2 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 523, SP+ −22.6 (−16.1 vs. talent)North Dakota State: talent 516, SP+ +8.6 (+15.3 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 505, SP+ −28.4 (−21.3 vs. talent)Kennesaw State: talent 503, SP+ −9.8 (−2.6 vs. talent)Delaware: talent 483, SP+ −13.1 (−5.3 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 460, SP+ −13.7 (−5.3 vs. talent)Army: talent 304, SP+ −0.9 (+10.9 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 272, SP+ +1.4 (+13.6 vs. talent)Navy: talent 196, SP+ −0.2 (+12.6 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 746, SP+ −0.4, expected +3.4Syracuse
One dot per FBS team, 2026. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is Syracuse's conversion.
Conversion by season

Bars above the line: SP+ above what the roster's talent predicted. The lighter bar is the season in progress.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

30 of 3586%14th of 138
FBS median 77%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

0.8 ptsper game81st of 138
0.04 expected wins over 5 games, FBS median 0.8 pts
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

4 of 4100%
FBS teams went 73%

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 Syracuse'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 0.04 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 CONNQ3 7:58 4th & 23 at CONN 34, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.9 pts
  2. at CONNQ4 12:26 4th & 3 at SYR 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
  3. at CONNQ2 1:45 4th & 4 at CONN 28, up 20Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
  4. vs CALQ1 6:55 4th & 8 at CAL 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
  5. at UVAQ3 7:28 4th & 10 at UVA 39, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
Every call this season (35)
Wk 1 · vs UNH · W 66-34 of 4 agreed
  1. Q1 10:554th & 11 at UNH 44, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q3 11:334th & 19 at UNH 49, up 43 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 2:594th & 2 at UNH 2, up 43 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q4 0:484th & 9 at UNH 16, up 63 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 2 · vs CAL · L 18-217 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 12:374th & 7 at CAL 7, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q1 6:554th & 8 at CAL 40, up 3 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q1 1:404th & 3 at SYR 47, up 3 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 14:444th & 9 at CAL 15, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q2 4:494th & 21 at SYR 34, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q2 1:094th & 6 at SYR 13, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 9:304th & 10 at CAL 13, up 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 1:354th & 14 at CAL 28, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 3 · at PITT · L 13-277 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 6:424th & 7 at PITT 37, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 14:084th & 18 at SYR 11, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 10:284th & 6 at PITT 10, down 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 0:004th & 13 at PITT 24, down 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 13:144th & 2 at SYR 33, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 5:514th & 23 at PITT 41, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 3:084th & 8 at PITT 12, down 17 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 5 · at CONN · W 42-413 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 7:554th & 7 at SYR 28, down 1 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 1:454th & 4 at CONN 28, up 20 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q3 7:584th & 23 at CONN 34, up 13 · Went for it−2.9 pts
  4. Q3 0:204th & 2 at SYR 43, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q4 12:264th & 3 at SYR 45, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  6. Q4 8:444th & 1 at CONN 30, tied · Went for itAgreed
Wk 6 · at UVA · L 25-289 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 4:024th & 1 at UVA 1, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 5:514th & 8 at UVA 29, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 0:324th & 10 at UVA 11, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 12:294th & 6 at UVA 23, up 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 7:284th & 10 at UVA 39, up 10 · PuntedClose call
  6. Q3 2:144th & 11 at SYR 5, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 14:034th & 18 at SYR 41, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 8:454th & 3 at SYR 48, down 4 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q4 3:544th & 1 at UVA 36, down 11 · Went for itAgreed
  10. Q4 0:174th & 6 at SYR 17, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

13 of 1587%
FBS median 92%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0.2 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.1 pts
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Went for two 3 times, converted 1
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. vs CALQ3 1:38 Touchdown, up 4 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.2 pts
  2. vs CALQ2 8:50 Touchdown, up 12 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.1 pts

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2026
2-3vs. 2.8 expected−0.8 wins

110th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

  1. W
    UNH
  2. L
    CAL
  3. L
    PITT
  4. W
    CONN
  5. L
    UVA
What moved it, 2026
+0.3 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
−0.9 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

Every game starts at Syracuse'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−0.63
  • Possession & field position−0.07
  • Clock−0.22
  • Timeouts+0.16
  • Other+0.01
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17
Game by game

Points of win probability, from Syracuse's side.

Closest call

SYR 44-41 UNLV (2024) - Syracuse dropped to a 5.7% win probability before pulling it out.

Season arc, 2026

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Syracuse's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2026

The largest single-play change in Syracuse's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

Syracuse's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

Syracuse's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

Syracuse's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$87.73-11.8% over the past year
Series & rivalries

Syracuse's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com