Try the model

Washington State

Cougars · Pac-12 · FBS
7-62021 · 6-3 in conference
SP+
+6.7 (#57)
FPI
+2.7 (#54)
SRS
+4.5 (#52)
Resume
#54

Next game

ORST
at Oregon State
Sat, Oct 17 · 6:00 PM EDT
Projected score
WSU17
ORST32
Win chance
18%
WSU 18%ORST 82%
Market: ORST favored by 18.5 · Points model v7, built without betting lines. A model's view, not betting advice.Full projection →

Advanced stats

CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →

Profile vs. FBS, 2021
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.16, 51st percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 43.5%, 54th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.27, 48th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.17, 65th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.20, 40th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 48.3%, 48th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 32.9%, 67th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.99, 37th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 20.5%, 12th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 18.2%, 19th percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.12, 64th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 44.4%, 30th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.17, 88th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.15, 31st percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.17, 68th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 51.5%, 21st percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 29.7%, 56th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.27, 24th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 19.3%, 76th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 17.2%, 60th percentile among FBS

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.
  • 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.
  • Explosiveness
    Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  • Rushing EPA
    EPA per designed run.
  • Passing EPA
    EPA per pass play.
  • Standard downs
    Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  • Passing downs
    Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  • Line yards
    Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  • Stuff rate
    Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  • Havoc
    Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.

Percentiles among the 130 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.

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2021
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense−0.0285th of 130
Defense−0.30allowed30th of 130
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense−0.1591st of 130
Defense−0.21allowed27th of 130
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense+0.274.3 pts/trip37th of 130
Defense−0.463.9 pts/trip allowed44th of 130
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.2024th of 130
Defense1.12opponents94th of 130

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
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

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

Players

YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →

Players, 2021
The quarterback
Jayden de Laura: 1.39 WAR (90% interval 0.75 to 2.05)
66th of 219 FBS QBs in WAR · 94th of 168 in value per play

Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.

  1. Jayden de LauraQB334 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 66th of 219 QBs1.39WAR0.75 to 2.05
  2. Max BorghiRB148 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 60th of 387 RBs0.53WAR0.39 to 0.67
  3. Deon McIntoshRB101 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 114th of 387 RBs0.36WAR0.27 to 0.45
  4. Travell HarrisWR70 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 52nd of 474 WRs0.22WAR0.14 to 0.29
  5. Calvin Jackson Jr.WR81 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 65th of 474 WRs0.20WAR0.12 to 0.29
  6. Jarrett GuarantanoQB61 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 182nd of 219 QBs0.17WAR0.04 to 0.29
  7. De'Zhaun StriblingWR46 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 103rd of 474 WRs0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
  8. Lincoln VictorWR26 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 261st of 474 WRs0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
Every player (12)
  1. Donovan OllieWR35 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 261st of 474 WRs0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
  2. Dean JanikowskiPK14 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 63rd of 128 kickers0.07WAR0.05 to 0.11
  3. Nick HabererP43 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 74th of 101 punters0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.15
  4. Nakia WatsonRB24 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 308th of 387 RBs0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
1.56WAR
72nd of 130
Running backs
0.97WAR
46th of 130
Receivers
0.77WAR
8th of 130
Tight ends
0.00WAR
38th of 130
Kicker
0.07WAR
62nd of 130
Punter
0.07WAR
74th of 130
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
−0.60/game
91st of 130
Front seven
+1.43/game
18th of 130
Secondary
+2.92/game
13th of 130

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

Transfer portal, 2021

7 players transferred in and 24 out. WAR is each one's 2020 season, before the move. Every team's portal

Brought in
0.59WAR
10th most of 130
FBS median 0.02
Lost
0.02WAR
53rd least of 130
FBS median 0.06
Net
+0.58WAR
5th of 130
FBS median 0.00

In 2021, the arrivals have added 0.33 WAR at Washington State and the departures 0.07 wherever they went.

Arrivals (7)20202021
  1. Jarrett GuarantanoDUAL · 3★from Tennessee0.470.17
  2. Nakia WatsonRB · 3★from Wisconsin0.130.07
  3. Lincoln VictorWR · 3★from Hawai'i-0.09
The other 4
  1. Ben WilsonILB · 3★from TCU--
  2. Kaleb Ford-DementCB · 3★from Old Dominion--
  3. Tyrone Hill Jr.CB · 3★from Buffalo--
  4. Jasiah Richard-LewisWRfrom Azusa Pacific--
Departures (24)20202021
  1. Blake MazzaKto SMU0.02-
  2. Jamire CalvinWR · 4★to Mississippi State-0.07
The other 22
  1. Ayden HectorCB · 4★to undecided--
  2. Rodrick FisherWR · 4★to undecided--
  3. Cosmas KweteOLB · 3★to Northern Arizona--
  4. Davontavean MartinWR · 3★to Oklahoma State--
  5. Hunter MayginnesIOL · 3★to undecided--
  6. Jay WilkersonWR · 3★to undecided--
  7. Kassidy WoodsWR · 3★to Northern Colorado--
  8. Lamar CampbellCB · 3★to Idaho--
  9. Lamonte McDougleDL · 3★to UTSA--
  10. Lolani LangiLB · 3★to undecided--
  11. Mike PettwayWR · 3★to Jacksonville State--
  12. Skyler ThomasS · 3★to Liberty--
  13. Trey DavisCB · 3★to undecided--
  14. Tyrese RossS · 3★to South Carolina--
  15. Will Rodgers IIIEDGE · 3★to Temple--
  16. John BledsoeQB · 2★to San Diego--
  17. Jon DennyOG · 2★to Idaho--
  18. Clay MarkoffRBto Arizona--
  19. Lucas BaconWRto undecided--
  20. Phillip PowellSto undecided--
  21. Uluaki KatoangaLBto undecided--
  22. Will HeckmanSto undecided--

Only quarterbacks, skill players and specialists have a WAR of their own, so they make up these totals; linemen and defenders count in the moves but add none. 2020 is the player's season at his old school, 2021 his season after the move. A dash means no FBS snaps that season. Rosters tie CFBD's portal entries to players, which works for about 19 in 20 skill-position moves.

Talent and roster

How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →

What it had and what it did, 2021
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 601, 61st of 130 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 180, 57th of 130 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 78%, 58th of 128 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +6.7, 57th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion
+5.3points per game

Washington State's SP+ of +6.7 is 5.3 points above the +1.4 its roster talent predicts, 48th of 130 in FBS.

Offense+3.5
Defense+1.2

The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.

−200+2005001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 1004, SP+ +26.0 (−3.4 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 1002, SP+ +32.0 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 985, SP+ +29.3 (+1.5 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 935, SP+ +18.7 (−4.9 vs. talent)LSU: talent 904, SP+ +4.1 (−17.0 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 895, SP+ +16.8 (−3.6 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 888, SP+ +21.1 (+1.3 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 886, SP+ +10.2 (−9.4 vs. talent)Florida: talent 886, SP+ +11.0 (−8.6 vs. talent)USC: talent 875, SP+ −0.6 (−19.4 vs. talent)Texas: talent 874, SP+ +8.5 (−10.3 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 853, SP+ +17.4 (+0.2 vs. talent)Miami: talent 841, SP+ +10.8 (−5.5 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 840, SP+ +11.0 (−5.2 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 833, SP+ +23.4 (+7.7 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 821, SP+ +14.3 (−0.5 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 798, SP+ +6.4 (−6.8 vs. talent)Washington: talent 790, SP+ −0.7 (−13.3 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 781, SP+ +17.5 (+5.5 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 770, SP+ +7.6 (−3.7 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 751, SP+ +20.1 (+10.0 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 748, SP+ +3.9 (−6.0 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 746, SP+ +9.4 (−0.3 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 745, SP+ −10.2 (−19.9 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 744, SP+ +10.3 (+0.7 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 734, SP+ +11.8 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 732, SP+ +14.8 (+6.0 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 723, SP+ +13.8 (+5.5 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 716, SP+ +10.5 (+2.6 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 709, SP+ +13.4 (+6.0 vs. talent)Utah: talent 708, SP+ +15.2 (+7.9 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 707, SP+ −6.7 (−14.0 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 706, SP+ +6.2 (−1.0 vs. talent)NC State: talent 700, SP+ +16.1 (+9.2 vs. talent)TCU: talent 699, SP+ −0.6 (−7.4 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 677, SP+ +11.2 (+5.7 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 669, SP+ +17.6 (+12.6 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 664, SP+ −7.8 (−12.6 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 664, SP+ +2.4 (−2.3 vs. talent)California: talent 662, SP+ +3.4 (−1.3 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 661, SP+ +15.6 (+11.0 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 657, SP+ +11.4 (+7.0 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 653, SP+ +14.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 649, SP+ −11.1 (−15.0 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 648, SP+ +3.1 (−0.7 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 644, SP+ +10.3 (+6.6 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 641, SP+ −10.0 (−13.5 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 641, SP+ +8.9 (+5.4 vs. talent)UCF: talent 639, SP+ +4.8 (+1.4 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 636, SP+ +0.9 (−2.3 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 630, SP+ +4.3 (+1.4 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 627, SP+ +21.2 (+18.5 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 620, SP+ +7.2 (+4.9 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 614, SP+ +17.2 (+15.2 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 614, SP+ +14.3 (+12.3 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 611, SP+ +1.8 (−0.1 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 610, SP+ −19.4 (−21.2 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 608, SP+ +7.8 (+6.1 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 607, SP+ +9.8 (+8.1 vs. talent)Duke: talent 606, SP+ −13.5 (−15.1 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 589, SP+ +10.1 (+9.3 vs. talent)SMU: talent 576, SP+ +8.9 (+8.8 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 573, SP+ −3.0 (−3.0 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 572, SP+ +1.0 (+1.1 vs. talent)Houston: talent 571, SP+ +10.9 (+11.0 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 570, SP+ +14.2 (+14.4 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 568, SP+ −12.6 (−12.3 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 567, SP+ +0.3 (+0.6 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 558, SP+ +9.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 553, SP+ −5.2 (−4.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 548, SP+ −19.7 (−18.5 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 541, SP+ −12.1 (−10.5 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 525, SP+ +13.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 521, SP+ −21.6 (−19.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 520, SP+ −11.6 (−9.1 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 516, SP+ +0.5 (+3.2 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 509, SP+ +6.5 (+9.5 vs. talent)Temple: talent 501, SP+ −19.1 (−15.8 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 496, SP+ −6.5 (−3.0 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 494, SP+ −4.0 (−0.4 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 484, SP+ +10.8 (+14.8 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 476, SP+ −17.9 (−13.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 470, SP+ +5.8 (+10.3 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 466, SP+ −14.2 (−9.5 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 465, SP+ +6.9 (+11.6 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 463, SP+ −3.9 (+0.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 463, SP+ −13.7 (−8.9 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 457, SP+ +8.0 (+13.1 vs. talent)App State: talent 450, SP+ +10.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Troy: talent 449, SP+ −6.5 (−1.1 vs. talent)UAB: talent 444, SP+ +9.1 (+14.6 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 443, SP+ −2.4 (+3.2 vs. talent)BYU: talent 443, SP+ +8.9 (+14.5 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 442, SP+ +8.3 (+13.9 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 436, SP+ +8.7 (+14.5 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 428, SP+ −16.0 (−9.9 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 422, SP+ +3.6 (+9.9 vs. talent)Rice: talent 420, SP+ −22.9 (−16.5 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 416, SP+ +13.2 (+19.7 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 415, SP+ −7.2 (−0.6 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 414, SP+ +1.8 (+8.4 vs. talent)San José State: talent 411, SP+ −1.9 (+4.8 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 409, SP+ −7.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 397, SP+ −2.3 (+4.9 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 396, SP+ +0.6 (+7.8 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 394, SP+ +0.1 (+7.4 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 392, SP+ −13.8 (−6.5 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 384, SP+ −15.3 (−7.7 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 381, SP+ −12.4 (−4.7 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 378, SP+ +1.5 (+9.3 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 361, SP+ −18.6 (−10.3 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 358, SP+ −6.4 (+2.0 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 354, SP+ −7.1 (+1.4 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 341, SP+ −7.8 (+1.0 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 338, SP+ −11.2 (−2.3 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 332, SP+ −11.6 (−2.5 vs. talent)UConn: talent 332, SP+ −25.6 (−16.5 vs. talent)Akron: talent 331, SP+ −23.1 (−14.0 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 327, SP+ +0.6 (+9.8 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 319, SP+ −4.2 (+5.2 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 312, SP+ −20.3 (−10.7 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 269, SP+ −1.0 (+9.6 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 267, SP+ −9.5 (+1.1 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 227, SP+ −29.3 (−18.0 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 155, SP+ +8.4 (+20.7 vs. talent)Navy: talent 128, SP+ −8.5 (+4.1 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 117, SP+ −24.2 (−11.6 vs. talent)Army: talent 112, SP+ +4.7 (+17.4 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 30, SP+ +7.4 (+20.3 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 601, SP+ +6.7, expected +1.4Washington State
One dot per FBS team, 2021. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is Washington State's conversion.
Conversion by season

Bars above the line: SP+ above what the roster's talent predicted. The lighter bar is the season in progress.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2021
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

75 of 9678%48th of 130
FBS median 77%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

0.9 ptsper game59th of 130
0.12 expected wins over 13 games, FBS median 1.0 pts
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

6 of 967%
FBS teams went 69%

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.12 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 UTAHQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at UTAH 4, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
  2. at OREQ3 9:57 4th & 2 at WSU 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
  3. vs USCQ2 4:24 4th & 9 at USC 35, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
  4. at ASUQ3 4:24 4th & 4 at WSU 49, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
  5. vs BYUQ2 2:32 4th & 4 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
  6. at CMUQ2 10:29 4th & 11 at CMU 13, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
  7. at CMUQ4 7:49 4th & 13 at CMU 44, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
  8. vs USCQ4 12:46 4th & 1 at WSU 18, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
Every call this season (96)
Wk 1 · vs USU · L 23-267 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 11:304th & 15 at WSU 42, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 8:334th & 7 at WSU 45, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 14:574th & 5 at USU 18, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 4:174th & 6 at USU 14, down 2 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q2 0:544th & 9 at USU 9, down 2 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q4 12:114th & 11 at USU 11, up 9 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 3:024th & 6 at WSU 29, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 2 · vs PRST · W 44-245 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 12:514th & 3 at WSU 32, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 1:404th & 24 at WSU 33, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 7:114th & 6 at PRST 31, up 20 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q4 11:574th & 16 at WSU 1, up 27 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 9:314th & 10 at WSU 17, up 27 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 2:024th & 7 at PRST 13, up 20 · Went for itClose call
Wk 3 · vs USC · L 14-456 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 0:124th & 2 at USC 9, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 13:164th & 2 at USC 2, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 4:244th & 9 at USC 35, up 14 · Punted−1.3 pts
  4. Q3 10:324th & 3 at WSU 32, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 4:554th & 14 at WSU 21, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 0:244th & 10 at WSU 25, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 12:464th & 1 at WSU 18, down 21 · PuntedClose call
  8. Q4 6:194th & 3 at WSU 36, down 24 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q4 2:224th & 8 at WSU 38, down 31 · Went for itClose call
Wk 4 · at UTAH · L 13-249 of 11 agreed
  1. Q1 11:254th & 1 at UTAH 34, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 8:434th & 2 at UTAH 37, tied · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 10:344th & 15 at UTAH 22, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 6:324th & 13 at WSU 47, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 0:494th & 1 at UTAH 16, down 4 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q2 0:004th & 1 at UTAH 4, down 4 · Kicked a field goal−1.8 pts
  7. Q3 3:394th & 17 at WSU 25, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 12:454th & 6 at WSU 43, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 8:424th & 5 at WSU 25, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q4 2:194th & 8 at WSU 41, down 4 · Went for itAgreed
  11. Q4 0:504th & 25 at WSU 22, down 11 · Went for itClose call
Wk 5 · at CAL · W 21-69 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 7:024th & 6 at WSU 29, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 1:464th & 5 at CAL 5, up 8 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 14:134th & 9 at WSU 43, up 11 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 3:044th & 3 at CAL 34, up 11 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q3 3:534th & 9 at WSU 42, up 15 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 14:454th & 9 at WSU 29, up 15 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 14:454th & 9 at WSU 29, up 15 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 8:434th & 5 at WSU 23, up 15 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 3:234th & 18 at WSU 49, up 15 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 6 · vs ORST · W 31-245 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 1 at ORST 46, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q1 10:034th & 9 at ORST 43, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 5:374th & 8 at WSU 49, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 8:534th & 5 at ORST 13, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q2 2:084th & 3 at ORST 7, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 7 · vs STAN · W 34-316 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 5:554th & 6 at WSU 19, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 3:494th & 28 at WSU 4, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 3:194th & 1 at STAN 9, tied · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q3 12:044th & 4 at STAN 23, up 4 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q4 13:004th & 6 at WSU 29, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 6:274th & 12 at WSU 23, down 4 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 8 · vs BYU · L 19-213 of 4 agreed
  1. Q2 14:534th & 7 at WSU 34, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 7:394th & 18 at WSU 36, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 2:324th & 4 at midfield, tied · PuntedClose call
  4. Q4 11:434th & 11 at WSU 37, down 8 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 9 · at ASU · W 34-216 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 12:334th & 3 at ASU 32, tied · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 10:534th & 1 at ASU 42, up 11 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q3 12:524th & 2 at WSU 33, up 11 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q3 10:324th & 10 at WSU 36, up 11 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 4:244th & 4 at WSU 49, up 11 · Punted−1.1 pts
  6. Q4 14:544th & 12 at ASU 23, up 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 6:504th & 10 at ASU 15, up 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 1:374th & 16 at ASU 27, up 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 11 · at ORE · L 24-384 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 9:364th & 10 at WSU 30, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 0:004th & 10 at WSU 23, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 9:224th & 3 at WSU 29, down 14 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q3 9:574th & 2 at WSU 49, down 7 · Punted−1.3 pts
  5. Q3 2:044th & 6 at WSU 29, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 8:314th & 16 at ORE 17, down 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 12 · vs ARIZ · W 44-184 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 13:284th & 9 at WSU 36, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 14:534th & 2 at WSU 40, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 9:314th & 6 at WSU 38, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 15:004th & 1 at WSU 34, up 27 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 0:274th & 1 at WSU 34, up 27 · PuntedClose call
  6. Q4 9:294th & 17 at WSU 35, up 19 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 6:024th & 12 at ARIZ 47, up 26 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 13 · at WASH · W 40-132 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 4:164th & 14 at WASH 14, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 11:584th & 5 at WASH 49, up 10 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 6:324th & 8 at WASH 8, up 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 3:554th & 4 at WASH 24, up 13 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q4 8:354th & 2 at WASH 22, up 17 · Kicked a field goalClose call
Tony the Tiger Sun Bowl · at CMU · L 21-249 of 13 agreed
  1. Q1 12:404th & 9 at WSU 29, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 9:114th & 4 at WSU 34, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 5:334th & 10 at WSU 18, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 10:294th & 11 at CMU 13, down 13 · Went for itClose call
  5. Q2 4:364th & 2 at WSU 16, down 13 · PuntedClose call
  6. Q2 2:344th & 17 at WSU 15, down 13 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q2 0:574th & 3 at WSU 29, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 13:474th & 12 at WSU 16, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q3 8:564th & 10 at WSU 4, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q3 2:244th & 5 at CMU 5, down 14 · Went for itClose call
  11. Q4 10:374th & 1 at WSU 32, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  12. Q4 7:494th & 13 at CMU 44, down 10 · Went for itClose call
  13. Q4 2:044th & 5 at WSU 19, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

37 of 4093%
FBS median 91%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0.7 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.6 pts
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Never went for two
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. at CMUQ4 3:13 Touchdown, down 4 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.6 pts
  2. at OREQ4 0:09 Touchdown, down 15 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.1 pts
  3. at WASHQ4 8:23 Touchdown, up 26 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)<0.1 pts

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2021
7-6vs. 6.4 expected+0.6 wins

47th of 130 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
  2. W
  3. L
  4. L
  5. W
  6. W
  7. W
  8. L
  9. W
  10. L
  11. W
  12. W
  13. L
What moved it, 2021
−0.1 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
+1.0 win
on the field, after the opening snap

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+0.82
  • Clock+0.03
  • Timeouts−0.03
  • Other+0.01
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.13
Game by game

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.

Season arc, 2021

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Washington State's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2021

The largest single-play change in Washington State's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

Washington State's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

Washington State's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

Washington State's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$94.84-3.9% over the past year
Series & rivalries

Washington State's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com