Syracuse

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0634th
  Defense+0.1919th
• 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.
  Offense41.1%31st
  Defense43.7%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2467th
  Defense+1.3113th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1377th
  Defense+0.1225th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0118th
  Defense+0.2616th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%34th
  Defense47.3%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.
  Offense31.4%33rd
  Defense36.4%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6014th
  Defense2.8551st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%73rd
  Defense22.5%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%39th
  Defense14.7%29th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   CCSU
2. L
   MTSU
3. W
   CMU
4. L
   LSU
5. L
   NCSU
6. W
   PITT
7. W
   CLEM
8. L
   MIA
9. L
   FSU
10. L
    WAKE
11. L
    LOU
12. L
    BC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players, 2017

1. Eric DungeyQB454 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 15th of 226 QBs
   1.97WAR1.21 to 2.68
2. Steve IshmaelWR127 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 4th of 426 WRs
   0.35WAR0.21 to 0.50
3. Zack MahoneyQB102 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 158th of 226 QBs
   0.29WAR0.12 to 0.47
4. Dontae StricklandRB143 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 111th of 352 RBs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.37
5. Ervin PhilipsWR134 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 20th of 426 WRs
   0.25WAR0.12 to 0.39
6. Sterling HofrichterPK46 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 11th of 110 kickers
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.28
7. Moe NealRB89 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 201st of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
8. Cole MurphyPK24 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 36th of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.22

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54054063rd of 130Roster talent: 540, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417455th of 130Recruiting: 174, 55th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%71st of 128Returning production: 60%, 71st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.0+4.056th of 128SP+ rating: +4.0, 56th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.13 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 MTSUQ3 1:21 4th & 1 at MTSU 22, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. vs CLEMQ4 9:41 4th & 3 at CLEM 11, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at LSUQ3 10:12 4th & 1 at SYR 36, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs CLEMQ2 3:49 4th & 3 at CLEM 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at NCSUQ4 9:47 4th & 10 at NCSU 15, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs PITTQ3 2:12 4th & 4 at PITT 20, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at FSUQ3 9:35 4th & 4 at FSU 24, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs MTSUQ2 2:54 4th & 4 at MTSU 4, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

86th of 130 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

   CCSU
2. L

   MTSU
3. W

   CMU
4. L

   LSU
5. L

   NCSU
6. W

   PITT
7. W

   CLEM
8. L

   MIA
9. L

   FSU
10. L

    WAKE
11. L

    LOU
12. L

    BC

What moved it, 2017

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−1.46
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.82

Game by game

• CCSUW 50-7 vs CCSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MTSUL 23-30 vs MTSU75% → 6%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• CMUW 41-17 vs CMU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30
• LSUL 26-35 at LSU7% → 3%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• NCSUL 25-33 at NCSU17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• PITTW 27-24 vs PITT63% → 88%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position +2
• CLEMW 27-24 vs CLEM8% → 94%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +86: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3
• MIAL 19-27 at MIA13% → 3%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• FSUL 24-27 at FSU27% → 17%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −2
• WAKEL 43-64 vs WAKE40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• LOUL 10-56 at LOU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −18
• BCL 14-42 vs BC43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −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.