Air Force

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1860th
  Defense+0.1353rd
• 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.
  Offense45.7%71st
  Defense37.7%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.021st
  Defense+1.423rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1365th
  Defense+0.0275th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4088th
  Defense+0.2627th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.3%74th
  Defense39.4%97th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%44th
  Defense34.7%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0566th
  Defense2.4289th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.1%83rd
  Defense21.1%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%81st
  Defense1.3%7th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Air Force 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
   NICH
2. L
   WYO
3. W
   GAST
4. W
   BOIS
5. W
   NAVY
6. L
   USU
7. W
   UNM
8. W
   ARMY
9. W
   UNLV
10. W
    NEV
11. L
    SDSU
12. W
    CSU
13. W
    WMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Air Force.

Players, 2014

1. Kale PearsonQB303 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 79th of 199 QBs
   1.34WAR0.71 to 1.99
2. Will Conant?75 plays · +0.191 pts/play
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.35
3. Shayne DavernRB95 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 89th of 350 RBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.34
4. Jacobi OwensRB176 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 95th of 350 RBs
   0.23WAR0.09 to 0.38
5. Jalen RobinetteWR61 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 58th of 469 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.34
6. Garrett BrownWR70 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 128th of 469 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.22
7. D.J. JohnsonRB71 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 178th of 350 RBs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19
8. Nate RomineQB43 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 179th of 199 QBs
   0.11WAR0.01 to 0.21

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 Air Force'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Air Force's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.28 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 CSUQ4 10:58 4th & 1 at AF 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−6.7 pts
2. vs BOISQ3 10:24 4th & 1 at BOIS 49, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
3. vs NEVQ4 10:23 4th & 3 at NEV 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
4. vs UNMQ4 0:09 4th & 20 at UNM 23, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
5. vs NAVYQ2 6:35 4th & 1 at AF 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs BOISQ2 3:39 4th & 1 at AF 21, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs WMUQ3 11:43 4th & 3 at WMU 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at GASTQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at AF 33, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

2nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   NICH
2. L

   WYO
3. W

   GAST
4. W

   BOIS
5. W

   NAVY
6. L

   USU
7. W

   UNM
8. W

   ARMY
9. W

   UNLV
10. W

    NEV
11. L

    SDSU
12. W

    CSU
13. W

    WMU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Air Force'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+2.87
• Possession & field position+0.10
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.33

Game by game

• NICHW 44-16 vs NICH84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +18
• WYOL 13-17 at WYO52% → 19%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −21, Clock −2
• GASTW 48-38 at GAST73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• BOISW 28-14 vs BOIS15% → 99%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts +2
• NAVYW 30-21 vs NAVY39% → 97%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• USUL 16-34 at USU31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• UNMW 35-31 vs UNM77% → 91%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +2
• ARMYW 23-6 at ARMY63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• UNLVW 48-21 at UNLV62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• NEVW 45-38 vs NEV42% → 91%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −18
• SDSUL 14-30 at SDSU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −1
• CSUW 27-24 vs CSU34% → 96%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +1
• WMUW 38-24 vs WMU37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from Air Force's side.

Closest call

AF 41-38 SJSU (2016) - Air Force dropped to a 10.7% win probability before pulling it out.