Washington

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+0.2387th
  Defense0.0084th
• 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.
  Offense49.4%96th
  Defense39.2%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2349th
  Defense+1.1875th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2394th
  Defense−0.0794th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2973rd
  Defense+0.1164th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.2%96th
  Defense43.7%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.9%91st
  Defense30.2%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1681st
  Defense2.8851st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%61st
  Defense16.1%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.5%71st
  Defense14.6%30th

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 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
   CSU
2. W
   UCD
3. W
   WSU
4. L
   OSU
5. W
   MD
6. W
   RUTG
7. L
   MICH
8. W
   ILL
9. L
   WIS
10. W
    PUR
11. W
    UCLA
12. L
    ORE
13. W
    BOIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2025

1. Demond Williams Jr.QB396 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 34th of 231 QBs
   1.56WAR0.89 to 2.27
2. Denzel BostonWR80 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 10th of 451 WRs
   0.35WAR0.19 to 0.54
3. Jonah ColemanRB161 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 34th of 365 RBs
   0.33WAR0.24 to 0.43
4. Adam MohammedRB84 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 190th of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.18
5. Dezmen RoebuckWR44 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
6. Decker DeGraafTE32 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 70th of 213 TEs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
7. Grady GrossPK13 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 93rd of 112 kickers
   0.05WAR0.01 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'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.
  72172137th of 134Roster talent: 721, 37th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819846th of 134Recruiting: 198, 46th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%51st of 132Returning production: 42%, 51st of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.4+18.413th of 134SP+ rating: +18.4, 13th 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'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 0.06 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 OSUQ2 4:39 4th & 14 at OSU 27, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
2. vs OREQ4 8:54 4th & 8 at ORE 13, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. at WISQ4 4:45 4th & 3 at WASH 24, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs ILLQ4 4:21 4th & 1 at WASH 20, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at UCLAQ2 5:46 4th & 4 at UCLA 4, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at WISQ4 10:43 4th & 5 at WIS 32, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at UCLAQ4 1:06 4th & 18 at UCLA 26, up 34Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs CSUQ1 1:09 4th & 19 at CSU 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

73rd of 136 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

   CSU
2. W

   UCD
3. W

   WSU
4. L

   OSU
5. W

   MD
6. W

   RUTG
7. L

   MICH
8. W

   ILL
9. L

   WIS
10. W

    PUR
11. W

    UCLA
12. L

    ORE
13. W

    BOIS

What moved it, 2025

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+0.52
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.50

Game by game

• CSUW 38-21 vs CSU93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +13
• UCDW 70-10 vs UCD97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• WSUW 59-24 at WSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12, Clock +1
• OSUL 6-24 vs OSU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• MDW 24-20 at MD69% → 97%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• RUTGW 38-19 vs RUTG73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −1
• MICHL 7-24 at MICH38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −39, Clock +2
• ILLW 42-25 vs ILL61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• WISL 10-13 at WIS78% → 4%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• PURW 49-13 vs PUR87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• UCLAW 48-14 at UCLA80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25
• OREL 14-26 vs ORE33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• BOISW 38-10 vs BOIS76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Clock −1

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.