Syracuse

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.066th
  Defense+0.2110th
• 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.
  Offense37.7%14th
  Defense45.4%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1928th
  Defense+1.3221st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0410th
  Defense+0.0651st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.045th
  Defense+0.367th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.2%18th
  Defense50.6%15th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.3%9th
  Defense32.8%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6110th
  Defense2.9244th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%50th
  Defense20.6%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%7th
  Defense13.4%16th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. L
   TENN
2. W
   CONN
3. W
   COLG
4. W
   CLEM
5. L
   DUKE
6. L
   SMU
7. L
   PITT
8. L
   GT
9. L
   UNC
10. L
    MIA
11. L
    ND
12. L
    BC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Syracuse.

Players, 2025

1. Steve AngeliQB118 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 141st of 231 QBs
   0.41WAR0.21 to 0.60
2. Rickie CollinsQB130 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 166th of 231 QBs
   0.21WAR−0.05 to 0.43
3. Yasin WillisRB119 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 137th of 365 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.24
4. Will NixonRB79 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 151st of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.21
5. Johntay Cook IIWR51 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 144th of 451 WRs
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.23
6. Jack StonehouseP43 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 7th of 100 punters
   0.11WAR−0.01 to 0.22
7. Darrell Gill Jr.WR37 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 205th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.18
8. Justus Ross-SimmonsWR30 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 242nd of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.13

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72872834th of 134Roster talent: 728, 34th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18518562nd of 134Recruiting: 185, 62nd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%114th of 132Returning production: 13%, 114th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.1−13.1113th of 134SP+ rating: −13.1, 113th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 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. vs PITTQ4 5:25 4th & 20 at SYR 35, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
2. vs PITTQ4 5:25 4th & 20 at SYR 35, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
3. at CLEMQ3 6:30 4th & 4 at midfield, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at CLEMQ2 5:12 4th & 6 at CLEM 45, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at GTQ3 8:40 4th & 1 at SYR 34, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs PITTQ3 9:02 4th & 2 at SYR 30, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at TENNQ2 6:52 4th & 16 at TENN 36, down 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at MIAQ2 5:21 4th & 3 at SYR 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

88th of 136 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. L

   TENN
2. W

   CONN
3. W

   COLG
4. W

   CLEM
5. L

   DUKE
6. L

   SMU
7. L

   PITT
8. L

   GT
9. L

   UNC
10. L

    MIA
11. L

    ND
12. L

    BC

What moved it, 2025

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−1.63
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• TENNL 26-45 at TENN16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21
• CONNW 27-20 vs CONN62% → 57%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −1, Timeouts −1
• COLGW 66-24 vs COLG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• CLEMW 34-21 at CLEM10% → 99%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +63, Clock +3
• DUKEL 3-38 vs DUKE37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• SMUL 18-31 at SMU11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• PITTL 13-30 vs PITT23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• GTL 16-41 at GT9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• UNCL 10-27 vs UNC54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −53, Clock −2
• MIAL 10-38 at MIA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• NDL 7-70 at ND1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• BCL 12-34 vs BC38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, 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.