Washington State

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−0.111st
  Defense+0.0658th
• 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.
  Offense32.8%2nd
  Defense40.5%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2134th
  Defense+1.2643rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0513th
  Defense+0.0258th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.114th
  Defense+0.1161st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.8%6th
  Defense46.3%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense18.8%1st
  Defense29.0%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8126th
  Defense2.8553rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%9th
  Defense20.1%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.0%2nd
  Defense13.6%22nd

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 State 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
   WASH
2. L
   KSU
3. W
   DUQ
4. L
   ARIZ
5. L
   FRES
6. L
   USU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington State.

Players, 2026

1. Caden PinnickQB180 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 69th of 192 QBs
   0.28WAR−0.04 to 0.57
2. Branden GanashamoorthyWR27 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 112th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
3. Daniel BloodWR21 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 136th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
4. Maxwell WoodsRB32 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 185th of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
5. Kirby VorheesRB42 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 188th of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
6. Jack StevensPK11 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 15th of 82 kickers
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
7. Leo PulalasiRB22 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 213th of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
8. Max DeanP27 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 12th of 84 punters
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.08

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 State'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.
  63063081st of 138Roster talent: 630, 81st of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17617674th of 138Recruiting: 176, 74th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%6th of 136Returning production: 91%, 6th 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.
  −11.1−11.1111th of 138SP+ rating so far: −11.1, 111th 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 State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 KSUQ3 12:20 4th & 13 at WSU 22, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
2. vs FRESQ2 4:04 4th & 1 at WSU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs ARIZQ4 0:39 4th & 4 at ARIZ 24, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. at WASHQ4 4:30 4th & 4 at WASH 24, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at USUQ4 13:19 4th & 9 at USU 38, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at KSUQ2 0:37 4th & 1 at KSU 49, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs ARIZQ2 14:02 4th & 1 at WSU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs FRESQ2 14:11 4th & 1 at WSU 21, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

129th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   WASH
2. L

   KSU
3. W

   DUQ
4. L

   ARIZ
5. L

   FRES
6. L

   USU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Washington State'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−1.45
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.23

Game by game

• WASHL 10-24 at WASH7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• KSUL 7-34 at KSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• DUQW 48-7 vs DUQ98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• ARIZL 24-34 vs ARIZ21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• FRESL 6-26 vs FRES59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• USUL 16-17 at USU40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Washington State's side.

Closest call

BOIS 44-47 WSU (2017) - Washington State dropped to a 1.9% win probability before pulling it out.