Syracuse

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1564th
  Defense+0.0470th
• 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.
  Offense45.4%70th
  Defense41.2%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.099th
  Defense+1.2343rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1987th
  Defense+0.0652nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1337th
  Defense+0.0283rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.7%54th
  Defense47.6%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%81st
  Defense28.2%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1176th
  Defense2.9442nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%93rd
  Defense19.1%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.2%91st
  Defense16.2%52nd

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, 2018

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
   WMU
2. W
   WAG
3. W
   FSU
4. W
   CONN
5. L
   CLEM
6. L
   PITT
7. W
   UNC
8. W
   NCSU
9. W
   WAKE
10. W
    LOU
11. L
    ND
12. W
    BC
13. W
    WVU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players, 2018

1. Eric DungeyQB436 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 15th of 225 QBs
   2.17WAR1.46 to 2.86
2. Moe NealRB113 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 103rd of 351 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.45
3. Dontae StricklandRB100 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 134th of 351 RBs
   0.32WAR0.25 to 0.39
4. Jamal CustisWR73 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 34th of 434 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.32
5. Andre SzmytPK23 plays · +0.446 pts/play · 3rd of 112 kickers
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
6. Tommy DeVitoQB65 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 193rd of 225 QBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
7. Sean RileyWR62 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 88th of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
8. Sterling HofrichterPK53 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 42nd of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.21

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57057054th of 130Roster talent: 570, 54th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717756th of 130Recruiting: 177, 56th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%84th of 129Returning production: 56%, 84th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.5+7.540th of 130SP+ rating: +7.5, 40th of 130 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.18 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 UNCQ4 5:07 4th & 9 at UNC 10, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.5 pts
2. vs FSUQ2 1:40 4th & 1 at FSU 1, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at PITTQ3 6:42 4th & 1 at SYR 15, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs WVUQ2 5:03 4th & 3 at midfield, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs NCSUQ4 9:39 4th & 3 at NCSU 23, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at WMUQ3 11:25 4th & 5 at WMU 38, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs FSUQ2 6:26 4th & 2 at SYR 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at PITTQ4 11:11 4th & 4 at PITT 11, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

3rd 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

   WMU
2. W

   WAG
3. W

   FSU
4. W

   CONN
5. L

   CLEM
6. L

   PITT
7. W

   UNC
8. W

   NCSU
9. W

   WAKE
10. W

    LOU
11. L

    ND
12. W

    BC
13. W

    WVU

What moved it, 2018

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+2.91
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.01

Game by game

• WMUW 55-42 at WMU62% → 98%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Clock +1
• WAGW 62-10 vs WAG75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +26
• FSUW 30-7 vs FSU36% → 100%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +55, Clock −1
• CONNW 51-21 vs CONN97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• CLEML 23-27 at CLEM5% → 17%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +12: Scoreboard −8, Possession & field position −1
• PITTL 37-44 at PITT61% → 20%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts +22
• UNCW 40-37 vs UNC71% → 85%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −19
• NCSUW 51-41 vs NCSU41% → 96%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +1
• WAKEW 41-24 at WAKE69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• LOUW 54-23 vs LOU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• NDL 3-36 at ND21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24
• BCW 42-21 at BC36% → 100%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• WVUW 34-18 vs WVU52% → 97%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1

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.