Washington

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2080th
  Defense+0.0953rd
• 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.
  Offense47.0%85th
  Defense43.1%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1715th
  Defense+1.1387th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0740th
  Defense+0.1523rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3389th
  Defense+0.0483rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.9%86th
  Defense47.7%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.7%68th
  Defense32.6%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2982nd
  Defense3.3015th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.7%91st
  Defense13.0%8th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%49th
  Defense14.0%18th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   WEB
2. W
   EMU
3. L
   WSU
4. W
   NU
5. L
   RUTG
6. W
   MICH
7. L
   IOWA
8. L
   IU
9. W
   USC
10. L
    PSU
11. W
    UCLA
12. L
    ORE
13. L
    LOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2024

1. Will RogersQB280 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 84th of 232 QBs
   1.13WAR0.63 to 1.59
2. Demond Williams Jr.QB118 plays · +0.280 pts/play · 116th of 232 QBs
   0.62WAR0.35 to 0.87
3. Jonah ColemanRB171 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 37th of 373 RBs
   0.45WAR0.32 to 0.57
4. Denzel BostonWR53 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 29th of 452 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.33
5. Grady GrossPK22 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 18th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Giles JacksonWR64 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 162nd of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.05 to 0.23
7. Keleki LatuTE33 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 46th of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.14
8. Jack McCallisterP36 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 54th of 106 punters
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74174135th of 131Roster talent: 741, 35th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918949th of 131Recruiting: 189, 49th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  3%3%130th of 130Returning production: 3%, 130th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.1+3.156th of 131SP+ rating: +3.1, 56th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.06 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 WSUQ2 2:02 4th & 2 at WASH 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. at IUQ4 6:06 4th & 5 at IU 5, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at IUQ4 11:28 4th & 3 at WASH 27, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs LOUQ3 10:09 4th & 7 at LOU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs MICHQ4 1:06 4th & 1 at MICH 15, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs MICHQ2 14:51 4th & 2 at WASH 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs NUQ2 14:11 4th & 3 at NU 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs WSUQ4 6:00 4th & 11 at WSU 46, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

88th of 134 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

   WEB
2. W

   EMU
3. L

   WSU
4. W

   NU
5. L

   RUTG
6. W

   MICH
7. L

   IOWA
8. L

   IU
9. W

   USC
10. L

    PSU
11. W

    UCLA
12. L

    ORE
13. L

    LOU

What moved it, 2024

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−0.76
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.19

Game by game

• WEBW 35-3 vs WEB97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• EMUW 30-9 vs EMU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• WSUL 19-24 vs WSU65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• NUW 24-5 vs NU78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts −1
• RUTGL 18-21 at RUTG41% → 15%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• MICHW 27-17 vs MICH51% → 97%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• IOWAL 16-40 at IOWA37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −39, Clock +2
• IUL 17-31 at IU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• USCW 26-21 vs USC40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• PSUL 6-35 at PSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• UCLAW 31-19 vs UCLA61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36
• OREL 21-49 at ORE10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• LOUL 34-35 vs LOU53% → 7%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3

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.