Syracuse

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1149th
  Defense+0.0857th
• 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.
  Offense44.3%65th
  Defense46.3%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2032nd
  Defense+1.0199th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1776th
  Defense+0.0752nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0912th
  Defense+0.1665th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%73rd
  Defense51.8%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%51st
  Defense30.3%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1967th
  Defense3.2325th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%26th
  Defense14.5%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%35th
  Defense14.9%32nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players, 2022

1. Garrett ShraderQB382 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 31st of 234 QBs
   1.84WAR1.16 to 2.55
2. Sean TuckerRB169 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 39th of 384 RBs
   0.46WAR0.30 to 0.63
3. Oronde Gadsden IITE56 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 3rd of 214 TEs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.37
4. Damien AlfordWR23 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 221st of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
5. Carlos Del Rio-WilsonQB55 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 205th of 234 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.17
6. Andre SzmytPK22 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 50th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.14
7. Devaughn CooperWR35 plays · +0.050 pts/play · 373rd of 455 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.09
8. LeQuint AllenRB15 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 318th of 384 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59059065th of 129Roster talent: 590, 65th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17517564th of 129Recruiting: 175, 64th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%45th of 128Returning production: 68%, 45th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.5+2.561st of 129SP+ rating: +2.5, 61st of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.07 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 CLEMQ3 4:53 4th & 3 at CLEM 43, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at MINNQ2 2:40 4th & 1 at SYR 49, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs LOUQ3 2:37 4th & 3 at SYR 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at BCQ1 3:57 4th & 25 at SYR 17, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
5. at BCQ1 3:57 4th & 25 at SYR 17, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
6. vs NCSUQ2 9:06 4th & 6 at NCSU 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at MINNQ4 2:30 4th & 8 at MINN 8, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs NCSUQ2 14:12 4th & 3 at NCSU 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

55th of 131 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

   LOU
2. W

   CONN
3. W

   PUR
4. W

   UVA
5. W

   WAG
6. W

   NCSU
7. L

   CLEM
8. L

   ND
9. L

   PITT
10. L

    FSU
11. L

    WAKE
12. W

    BC
13. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2022

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−0.12
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• LOUW 31-7 vs LOU33% → 100%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts +2
• CONNW 48-14 at CONN94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• PURW 32-29 vs PUR54% → 82%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +2
• UVAW 22-20 vs UVA72% → 94%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• WAGW 59-0 vs WAG100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• NCSUW 24-9 vs NCSU60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position −2
• CLEML 21-27 at CLEM16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −21
• NDL 24-41 vs ND46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• PITTL 9-19 at PITT46% → 3%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• FSUL 3-38 vs FSU29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position +1
• WAKEL 35-45 at WAKE26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• BCW 32-23 at BC74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• MINNL 20-28 at MINN22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −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.