Syracuse

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0220th
  Defense+0.1520th
• 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.
  Offense39.9%21st
  Defense48.5%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1635th
  Defense+1.1276th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0220th
  Defense+0.0836th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0934th
  Defense+0.2720th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%25th
  Defense54.2%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%20th
  Defense35.9%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6016th
  Defense2.7559th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.4%13th
  Defense23.0%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense1.4%12th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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

1. W
   URI
2. W
   WAKE
3. W
   CMU
4. L
   LSU
5. L
   USF
6. L
   UVA
7. L
   PITT
8. L
   FSU
9. L
   LOU
10. L
    CLEM
11. L
    NCSU
12. W
    BC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players, 2015

1. Eric DungeyQB201 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 98th of 205 QBs
   0.94WAR0.54 to 1.29
2. Zack MahoneyQB109 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 146th of 205 QBs
   0.38WAR0.19 to 0.58
3. Jordan FredericksRB92 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 102nd of 333 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.32
4. Steve IshmaelWR39 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 104th of 411 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
5. Riley DixonP52 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 19th of 92 punters
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.23
6. Cole MurphyPK16 plays · +0.464 pts/play · 37th of 115 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
7. Ervin PhilipsWR69 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 207th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
8. George MorrisRB51 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 219th of 333 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12

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 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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50950966th of 128Roster talent: 509, 66th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417453rd of 128Recruiting: 174, 53rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%56th of 127Returning production: 68%, 56th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.9−3.986th of 128SP+ rating: −3.9, 86th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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 WAKEQ4 10:08 4th & 1 at WAKE 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at LOUQ3 9:25 4th & 1 at SYR 37, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs PITTQ3 7:35 4th & 3 at PITT 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at UVAQ2 11:33 4th & 1 at UVA 31, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at FSUQ2 4:07 4th & 2 at FSU 44, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at LOUQ3 12:12 4th & 5 at LOU 35, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs CMUQ4 4:33 4th & 6 at CMU 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs WAKEQ4 1:47 4th & 3 at WAKE 3, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

67th of 128 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

   URI
2. W

   WAKE
3. W

   CMU
4. L

   LSU
5. L

   USF
6. L

   UVA
7. L

   PITT
8. L

   FSU
9. L

   LOU
10. L

    CLEM
11. L

    NCSU
12. W

    BC

What moved it, 2015

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−0.57
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.63

Game by game

• URIW 47-0 vs URI76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• WAKEW 30-17 vs WAKE66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• CMUW 30-27 vs CMU68% → 85%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −20
• LSUL 24-34 vs LSU6% → 4%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• USFL 24-45 at USF39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39
• UVAL 38-44 at UVA30% → 13%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +19
• PITTL 20-23 vs PITT31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• FSUL 21-45 at FSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• LOUL 17-41 at LOU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24
• CLEML 27-37 vs CLEM4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• NCSUL 29-42 at NCSU11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16
• BCW 20-17 vs BC42% → 96%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2

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.