Syracuse

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0831st
  Defense+0.1341st
• 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.
  Offense38.8%13th
  Defense45.0%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2566th
  Defense+1.2436th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0543rd
  Defense+0.1035th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1229th
  Defense+0.1652nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.9%10th
  Defense48.5%41st
• 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%28th
  Defense37.1%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8140th
  Defense3.2014th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%47th
  Defense18.5%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.7%48th
  Defense20.1%50th

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, 2019

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
   LIB
2. L
   MD
3. L
   CLEM
4. W
   WMU
5. W
   HC
6. L
   NCSU
7. L
   PITT
8. L
   FSU
9. L
   BC
10. W
    DUKE
11. L
    LOU
12. W
    WAKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players, 2019

1. Tommy DeVitoQB308 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 116th of 228 QBs
   0.58WAR0.08 to 1.07
2. Moe NealRB146 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 61st of 349 RBs
   0.50WAR0.37 to 0.62
3. Clayton WelchQB70 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 162nd of 228 QBs
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.40
4. Trishton JacksonWR74 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 35th of 439 WRs
   0.26WAR0.14 to 0.36
5. Abdul AdamsRB66 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 197th of 349 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.24
6. Andre SzmytPK18 plays · +0.520 pts/play · 18th of 114 kickers
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
7. Jarveon HowardRB53 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 240th of 349 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.16
8. Sterling HofrichterPK50 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 68th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.20

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57557562nd of 130Roster talent: 575, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917955th of 130Recruiting: 179, 55th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  38%38%109th of 130Returning production: 38%, 109th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.0−3.077th of 130SP+ rating: −3.0, 77th 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, 2019

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.11 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 WAKEQ3 5:57 4th & 2 at WAKE 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs PITTQ2 12:03 4th & 2 at PITT 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at NCSUQ4 9:57 4th & 6 at NCSU 20, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs PITTQ4 3:16 4th & 2 at PITT 11, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
5. at LOUQ4 8:24 4th & 18 at LOU 18, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
6. at LOUQ4 12:10 4th & 9 at LOU 28, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at LIBQ1 1:45 4th & 1 at LIB 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs WAKEQ1 2:19 4th & 3 at WAKE 6, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

75th 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

   LIB
2. L

   MD
3. L

   CLEM
4. W

   WMU
5. W

   HC
6. L

   NCSU
7. L

   PITT
8. L

   FSU
9. L

   BC
10. W

    DUKE
11. L

    LOU
12. W

    WAKE

What moved it, 2019

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−0.56
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.45

Game by game

• LIBW 24-0 at LIB88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• MDL 20-63 at MD40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −40
• CLEML 6-41 vs CLEM3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• WMUW 52-33 vs WMU56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• HCW 41-3 vs HC99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NCSUL 10-16 at NCSU39% → 9%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position −2
• PITTL 20-27 vs PITT40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• FSUL 17-35 at FSU20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24
• BCL 27-58 vs BC56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −58
• DUKEW 49-6 at DUKE28% → 100%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +67, Possession & field position +1
• LOUL 34-56 at LOU28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• WAKEW 39-30 vs WAKE30% → 94%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −16

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.