Syracuse

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1148th
  Defense+0.238th
• 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.
  Offense40.5%21st
  Defense45.7%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2881st
  Defense+1.375th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.073rd
  Defense+0.1910th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2571st
  Defense+0.309th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%24th
  Defense48.5%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.1%29th
  Defense39.3%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.578th
  Defense3.1124th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.1%24th
  Defense18.7%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%51st
  Defense13.0%11th

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, 2016

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
   COLG
2. L
   LOU
3. L
   USF
4. W
   CONN
5. L
   ND
6. L
   WAKE
7. W
   VT
8. W
   BC
9. L
   CLEM
10. L
    NCSU
11. L
    FSU
12. L
    PITT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players, 2016

1. Eric DungeyQB392 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 28th of 218 QBs
   1.84WAR1.23 to 2.49
2. Amba Etta-TawoWR90 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 25th of 417 WRs
   0.30WAR0.17 to 0.43
3. Zack MahoneyQB104 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 150th of 218 QBs
   0.28WAR0.10 to 0.46
4. Ervin PhilipsWR90 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 46th of 417 WRs
   0.25WAR0.13 to 0.36
5. Sterling HofrichterPK51 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 8th of 116 kickers
   0.24WAR0.11 to 0.38
6. Dontae StricklandRB153 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 178th of 347 RBs
   0.20WAR0.07 to 0.31
7. Steve IshmaelWR47 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 98th of 417 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.24
8. Brisly EstimeWR49 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 241st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.15

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52052066th of 128Roster talent: 520, 66th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117156th of 128Recruiting: 171, 56th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  101%101%3rd of 128Returning production: 101%, 3rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.7−2.779th of 128SP+ rating: −2.7, 79th 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, 2016

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 3 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. at WAKEQ3 11:50 4th & 1 at SYR 20, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs NCSUQ4 4:50 4th & 5 at SYR 41, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
3. at CONNQ1 4:07 4th & 1 at midfield, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at BCQ2 7:36 4th & 2 at BC 23, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs USFQ2 2:23 4th & 5 at USF 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at WAKEQ2 11:07 4th & 2 at SYR 28, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs USFQ1 0:30 4th & 4 at USF 23, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at PITTQ4 7:21 4th & 5 at PITT 7, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

49th 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

   COLG
2. L

   LOU
3. L

   USF
4. W

   CONN
5. L

   ND
6. L

   WAKE
7. W

   VT
8. W

   BC
9. L

   CLEM
10. L

    NCSU
11. L

    FSU
12. L

    PITT

What moved it, 2016

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+0.23
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.85

Game by game

• COLGW 33-7 vs COLG96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• LOUL 28-62 vs LOU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26
• USFL 20-45 vs USF19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• CONNW 31-24 at CONN38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• NDL 33-50 vs ND22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• WAKEL 9-28 at WAKE44% → 2%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position +1
• VTW 31-17 vs VT15% → 99%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts +1
• BCW 28-20 at BC40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• CLEML 0-54 at CLEM4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• NCSUL 20-35 vs NCSU38% → 72%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +12, Clock +2
• FSUL 14-45 vs FSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• PITTL 61-76 at PITT8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13

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.