Syracuse

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2282nd
  Defense+0.1820th
• 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.
  Offense48.1%89th
  Defense43.5%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2756th
  Defense+1.3131st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0429th
  Defense+0.0849th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3491st
  Defense+0.2914th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.4%87th
  Defense48.3%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.4%98th
  Defense32.8%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8727th
  Defense3.0542nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%42nd
  Defense17.2%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%60th
  Defense17.3%64th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   OHIO
2. W
   GT
3. L
   STAN
4. W
   HC
5. W
   UNLV
6. W
   NCSU
7. L
   PITT
8. W
   VT
9. L
   BC
10. W
    CAL
11. W
    CONN
12. W
    MIA
13. W
    WSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players, 2024

1. Kyle McCordQB538 plays · +0.356 pts/play · 1st of 232 QBs
   3.58WAR2.73 to 4.57
2. LeQuint AllenRB247 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 17th of 373 RBs
   0.53WAR0.33 to 0.72
3. Oronde Gadsden IITE72 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 4th of 221 TEs
   0.26WAR0.08 to 0.43
4. Trebor PenaWR93 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 36th of 452 WRs
   0.21WAR0.04 to 0.43
5. Jackson MeeksWR77 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 93rd of 452 WRs
   0.14WAR−0.02 to 0.32
6. Darrell Gill Jr.WR33 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 156th of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.18
7. Justus Ross-SimmonsWR9 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 276th of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06
8. Jack StonehouseP28 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 69th of 106 punters
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69969948th of 131Roster talent: 699, 48th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717767th of 131Recruiting: 177, 67th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%95th of 130Returning production: 32%, 95th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.5+5.544th of 131SP+ rating: +5.5, 44th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.09 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 BCQ2 0:00 4th & 18 at BC 49, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
2. at UNLVQ2 6:39 4th & 25 at SYR 22, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−2.9 pts
3. at UNLVQ2 0:07 4th & 3 at UNLV 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at BCQ4 1:16 4th & 5 at BC 7, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at NCSUQ4 3:12 4th & 7 at NCSU 12, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs STANQ4 7:49 4th & 5 at SYR 30, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs OHIOQ4 10:29 4th & 3 at SYR 41, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at NCSUQ2 14:53 4th & 5 at NCSU 19, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

9th of 134 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

   OHIO
2. W

   GT
3. L

   STAN
4. W

   HC
5. W

   UNLV
6. W

   NCSU
7. L

   PITT
8. W

   VT
9. L

   BC
10. W

    CAL
11. W

    CONN
12. W

    MIA
13. W

    WSU

What moved it, 2024

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+1.31
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.24
• Timeouts−0.25
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.52

Game by game

• OHIOW 38-22 vs OHIO89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17
• GTW 31-28 vs GT38% → 91%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +35
• STANL 24-26 vs STAN68% → 5%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• HCW 42-14 vs HC98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• UNLVW 44-41 at UNLV39% → 41%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +1: Clock +3, Timeouts −3
• NCSUW 24-17 at NCSU54% → 96%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• PITTL 13-41 at PITT36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −36
• VTW 38-31 vs VT38% → 84%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −22
• BCL 31-37 at BC39% → 4%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• CALW 33-25 at CAL24% → 97%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• CONNW 31-24 vs CONN78% → 97%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• MIAW 42-38 vs MIA18% → 76%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +2
• WSUW 52-35 at WSU90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +19, 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.