Washington State

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+0.0424th
  Defense0.0083rd
• 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.
  Offense41.9%47th
  Defense40.5%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.122nd
  Defense+1.0699th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0335th
  Defense+0.0461st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0922nd
  Defense+0.0390th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%56th
  Defense48.3%38th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.2%27th
  Defense23.5%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8233rd
  Defense2.9741st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%30th
  Defense18.1%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%47th
  Defense14.5%28th

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 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. W
   IDHO
2. W
   SDSU
3. L
   UNT
4. L
   WASH
5. W
   CSU
6. L
   MISS
7. L
   UVA
8. W
   TOL
9. L
   ORST
10. W
    LT
11. L
    JMU
12. W
    ORST
13. W
    USU

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

Players, 2025

1. Zevi EckhausQB364 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 27th of 231 QBs
   1.68WAR1.07 to 2.29
2. Jaxon PotterQB64 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 157th of 231 QBs
   0.28WAR0.14 to 0.39
3. Tony FreemanWR55 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 81st of 451 WRs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
4. Kirby VorheesRB119 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 134th of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.24
5. Joshua MeredithWR75 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 88th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.05 to 0.32
6. Jack StevensPK15 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 59th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Angel JohnsonRB49 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 255th of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Leo PulalasiRB43 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 263rd of 365 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56956995th of 134Roster talent: 569, 95th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18018068th of 134Recruiting: 180, 68th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  18%18%100th of 132Returning production: 18%, 100th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.8+3.860th of 134SP+ rating: +3.8, 60th 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 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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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 TOLQ4 10:28 4th & 1 at WSU 28, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
2. at CSUQ3 13:09 4th & 1 at WSU 34, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
3. at ORSTQ3 11:42 4th & 2 at WSU 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
4. vs LTQ2 7:30 4th & 1 at WSU 29, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
5. vs ORSTQ2 5:08 4th & 3 at ORST 38, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
6. at ORSTQ3 0:18 4th & 7 at ORST 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
7. at ORSTQ3 7:59 4th & 2 at WSU 26, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
8. at CSUQ2 5:16 4th & 4 at CSU 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

26th of 136 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. W

   IDHO
2. W

   SDSU
3. L

   UNT
4. L

   WASH
5. W

   CSU
6. L

   MISS
7. L

   UVA
8. W

   TOL
9. L

   ORST
10. W

    LT
11. L

    JMU
12. W

    ORST
13. W

    USU

What moved it, 2025

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+1.34
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.05
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.27

Game by game

• IDHOW 13-10 vs IDHO89% → 83%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position +1
• SDSUW 36-13 vs SDSU57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +44, Clock −1
• UNTL 10-59 at UNT34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +1
• WASHL 24-59 vs WASH7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12, Clock −1
• CSUW 20-3 at CSU35% → 99%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• MISSL 21-24 at MISS2% → 22%Before kickoff −48 · On the field +20: Scoreboard −5
• UVAL 20-22 at UVA14% → 9%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts +2
• TOLW 28-7 vs TOL38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +52, Timeouts +2
• ORSTL 7-10 at ORST56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −3
• LTW 28-3 vs LT75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −1
• JMUL 20-24 at JMU14% → 4%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −2
• ORSTW 32-8 vs ORST81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• USUW 34-21 vs USU47% → 99%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3

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.