Washington

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1242nd
  Defense+0.0369th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%39th
  Defense40.9%49th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2032nd
  Defense+1.1772nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0020th
  Defense−0.0579th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2554th
  Defense+0.1846th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%56th
  Defense45.9%51st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.5%17th
  Defense29.4%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9535th
  Defense2.7072nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%39th
  Defense26.3%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.9%62nd
  Defense17.1%67th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Washington 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
   WSU
2. W
   USU
3. W
   EWU
4. L
   MINN
5. L
   USC
6. L
   IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2026

1. Demond Williams Jr.QB196 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 40th of 192 QBs
   0.38WAR0.09 to 0.70
2. Chris LawsonWR31 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 39th of 364 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
3. Dezmen RoebuckWR47 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 65th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
4. Brian Bonner Jr.RB43 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 137th of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
5. Rashid WilliamsWR24 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 157th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Tyler RoblesPK8 plays · +0.320 pts/play · 10th of 82 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
7. Baron NaoneTE16 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 21st of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Elijah BrownQB24 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 170th of 192 QBs
   0.04WAR0.01 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 Washington'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77877824th of 138Roster talent: 778, 24th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23123121st of 138Recruiting: 231, 21st of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%50th of 136Returning production: 54%, 50th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.1+7.151st of 138SP+ rating so far: +7.1, 51st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Washington'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 0.07 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 USCQ3 2:35 4th & 2 at USC 48, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs USUQ4 6:28 4th & 2 at USU 25, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs USUQ3 1:35 4th & 2 at USU 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs MINNQ4 11:03 4th & 5 at MINN 15, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. vs IOWAQ2 1:56 4th & 4 at IOWA 12, down 27Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs USUQ2 0:04 4th & 3 at USU 30, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at USCQ4 0:39 4th & 10 at USC 18, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs IOWAQ2 13:34 4th & 2 at WASH 28, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

135th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Washington's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   WSU
2. W

   USU
3. W

   EWU
4. L

   MINN
5. L

   USC
6. L

   IOWA

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Washington'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−1.08
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.41

Game by game

• WSUW 24-10 vs WSU93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• USUW 16-14 vs USU96% → 84%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −12: Scoreboard +7, Timeouts +1
• EWUW 48-16 vs EWU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MINNL 24-27 vs MINN79% → 15%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −44, Clock −4
• USCL 21-25 at USC25% → 4%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −3
• IOWAL 24-41 vs IOWA62% → 2%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −60, Possession & field position +2

Points of win probability, from Washington's side.

Closest call

WASH 37-34 ORE (2022) - Washington dropped to a 6.2% win probability before pulling it out.