Try the model

Air Force

Falcons · Mountain West · FBS
8-62015 · 6-3 in conference
SP+
+4.7 (#57)
FPI
+1.8 (#71)
SRS
+0.2 (#67)
Resume
#50

Next game

UNLV
vs UNLV
Sat, Oct 17 · 3:30 PM EDT
Projected score
AF27
UNLV25
Win chance
60%
AF 60%UNLV 40%
Market: AF favored by 1.5 · 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, 2015
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.19, 79th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 46.9%, 82nd percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.13, 21st percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.16, 86th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.33, 84th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 51.8%, 83rd percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 32.6%, 43rd percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.20, 90th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 15.3%, 93rd percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 2.2%, 34th percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.12, 35th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 36.6%, 92nd percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.54, 1st percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.02, 66th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.23, 26th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 40.0%, 96th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 31.0%, 70th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.38, 92nd percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 24.1%, 83rd percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 2.4%, 72nd 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 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.

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, 2015
Per drive

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

Offense+0.7721st of 128
Defense+0.13allowed80th of 128
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense+0.4730th of 128
Defense+0.18allowed83rd of 128
Finishing

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

Offense+0.404.4 pts/trip31st of 128
Defense−0.134.0 pts/trip allowed62nd of 128
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.0598th of 128
Defense1.04opponents44th of 128

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

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

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, 2015
The quarterback
Karson Roberts: 1.01 WAR (90% interval 0.50 to 1.55)
94th of 205 FBS QBs in WAR · 106th of 164 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. Karson RobertsQB251 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 94th of 205 QBs1.01WAR0.50 to 1.55
  2. Jacobi OwensRB154 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 120th of 333 RBs0.21WAR0.08 to 0.35
  3. Jalen RobinetteWR37 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 144th of 411 WRs0.13WAR0.07 to 0.21
  4. D.J. JohnsonRB59 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 197th of 333 RBs0.11WAR0.05 to 0.15
  5. Garrett BrownWR53 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 235th of 411 WRs0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
  6. Shayne DavernRB31 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 220th of 333 RBs0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
  7. Nate RomineQB30 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 191st of 205 QBs0.08WAR0.00 to 0.15
  8. Timothy McVeyRB12 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 252nd of 333 RBs0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
Every player (10)
  1. Tyler WilliamsWR29 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 374th of 411 WRs0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.05
  2. Garrett GriffinTE14 plays · +0.009 pts/play · 27th of 189 TEs0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.03
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
1.09WAR
107th of 127
Running backs
0.43WAR
78th of 127
Receivers
0.24WAR
91st of 127
Tight ends
0.00WAR
20th of 127
Kicker
0.00WAR
110th of 127
Punter
0.00WAR
83rd of 127
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
+3.01/game
5th of 127
Front seven
+0.46/game
56th of 127
Secondary
−0.33/game
74th of 127

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

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, 2015
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 71, 128th of 128 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 98, 118th of 128 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 62%, 63rd of 127 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +4.7, 57th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion
+17.4points per game

Air Force's SP+ of +4.7 is 17.4 points above the −12.7 its roster talent predicts, 3rd of 128 in FBS.

Offense+10.6
Defense+4.8

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

−200+205001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 982, SP+ +29.0 (−1.6 vs. talent)USC: talent 927, SP+ +16.8 (−9.1 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 907, SP+ +29.5 (+5.3 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 890, SP+ +23.2 (+0.4 vs. talent)LSU: talent 889, SP+ +19.7 (−3.1 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 878, SP+ +16.8 (−5.0 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 865, SP+ +14.6 (−6.3 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 857, SP+ +22.4 (+2.2 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 851, SP+ +19.7 (0.0 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 830, SP+ +14.1 (−4.0 vs. talent)Texas: talent 821, SP+ +3.7 (−13.8 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 811, SP+ +19.5 (+2.8 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 808, SP+ +24.0 (+7.6 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 793, SP+ +18.6 (+3.2 vs. talent)Florida: talent 790, SP+ +13.8 (−1.4 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 776, SP+ +22.7 (+8.5 vs. talent)Miami: talent 773, SP+ +11.0 (−3.0 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 766, SP+ +22.8 (+9.3 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 764, SP+ +27.0 (+13.6 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 758, SP+ +15.9 (+3.0 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 732, SP+ +11.3 (+0.1 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 726, SP+ +3.4 (−7.3 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 715, SP+ +15.6 (+5.5 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 700, SP+ +11.1 (+2.0 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 695, SP+ +19.2 (+10.4 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 683, SP+ +20.0 (+12.0 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 681, SP+ +10.2 (+2.3 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 680, SP+ +15.1 (+7.3 vs. talent)Washington: talent 667, SP+ +9.7 (+2.6 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 667, SP+ +1.4 (−5.6 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 660, SP+ +19.5 (+12.9 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 658, SP+ +11.4 (+4.9 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 652, SP+ +9.9 (+3.8 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 643, SP+ +3.4 (−2.2 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 641, SP+ +4.5 (−1.0 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 641, SP+ +13.2 (+7.7 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 636, SP+ +15.1 (+9.9 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 635, SP+ −0.3 (−5.4 vs. talent)TCU: talent 630, SP+ +19.0 (+14.1 vs. talent)California: talent 626, SP+ +12.1 (+7.5 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 626, SP+ +12.9 (+8.3 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 611, SP+ +11.1 (+7.3 vs. talent)NC State: talent 610, SP+ +9.6 (+5.8 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 610, SP+ −1.6 (−5.3 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 607, SP+ +4.7 (+1.1 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 604, SP+ −1.6 (−5.0 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 602, SP+ −10.1 (−13.4 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 596, SP+ +0.2 (−2.8 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 590, SP+ +9.0 (+6.3 vs. talent)Utah: talent 574, SP+ +11.0 (+9.2 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 573, SP+ +9.3 (+7.5 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 569, SP+ +11.8 (+10.3 vs. talent)Duke: talent 563, SP+ +3.4 (+2.2 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 559, SP+ +0.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 545, SP+ −10.1 (−10.4 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 542, SP+ −4.0 (−4.2 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 541, SP+ +4.2 (+4.1 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 535, SP+ +4.7 (+4.9 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 534, SP+ −7.4 (−7.2 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 531, SP+ +2.7 (+3.0 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 530, SP+ +3.6 (+4.0 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 529, SP+ −0.3 (+0.1 vs. talent)BYU: talent 521, SP+ +8.7 (+9.5 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 516, SP+ +8.1 (+9.1 vs. talent)Houston: talent 511, SP+ +6.2 (+7.5 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 509, SP+ −3.9 (−2.5 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 504, SP+ +2.6 (+4.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 500, SP+ −21.3 (−19.5 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 497, SP+ −4.5 (−2.6 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 495, SP+ +8.0 (+10.0 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 495, SP+ +5.3 (+7.3 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 490, SP+ +3.5 (+5.7 vs. talent)UCF: talent 485, SP+ −15.5 (−13.0 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 471, SP+ +1.4 (+4.5 vs. talent)SMU: talent 447, SP+ −17.5 (−13.4 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 442, SP+ +4.9 (+9.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 438, SP+ +8.3 (+12.7 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 434, SP+ +7.5 (+12.1 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 430, SP+ −7.1 (−2.4 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 429, SP+ +7.7 (+12.5 vs. talent)Akron: talent 413, SP+ −0.8 (+4.6 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 410, SP+ −4.6 (+0.9 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 408, SP+ −14.0 (−8.5 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 408, SP+ +0.5 (+6.0 vs. talent)Temple: talent 406, SP+ +6.0 (+11.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 404, SP+ −8.5 (−2.8 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 404, SP+ −0.5 (+5.2 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 403, SP+ −12.6 (−6.8 vs. talent)UConn: talent 402, SP+ −6.3 (−0.5 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 402, SP+ −9.8 (−4.0 vs. talent)Rice: talent 400, SP+ −14.6 (−8.7 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 397, SP+ −13.5 (−7.6 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 391, SP+ +7.3 (+13.5 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 389, SP+ +0.5 (+6.7 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 386, SP+ −16.3 (−9.9 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 382, SP+ +8.0 (+14.5 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 381, SP+ −0.9 (+5.6 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 381, SP+ −25.0 (−18.5 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 381, SP+ −7.1 (−0.6 vs. talent)San José State: talent 380, SP+ −4.5 (+2.1 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 377, SP+ −3.1 (+3.6 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 367, SP+ −10.4 (−3.4 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 360, SP+ −15.5 (−8.3 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 360, SP+ −16.6 (−9.4 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 356, SP+ −17.7 (−10.4 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 354, SP+ +10.8 (+18.2 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 350, SP+ −15.5 (−8.0 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 342, SP+ −8.7 (−0.9 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 341, SP+ −19.7 (−11.9 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 338, SP+ −11.9 (−4.0 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 336, SP+ −6.7 (+1.3 vs. talent)Troy: talent 335, SP+ −7.0 (+1.0 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 333, SP+ −16.2 (−8.1 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 331, SP+ −0.1 (+8.0 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 331, SP+ −0.5 (+7.6 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 324, SP+ −9.5 (−1.2 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 320, SP+ −14.8 (−6.4 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 316, SP+ −10.3 (−1.8 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 315, SP+ −16.7 (−8.1 vs. talent)App State: talent 313, SP+ +7.9 (+16.5 vs. talent)Navy: talent 307, SP+ +12.1 (+20.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 304, SP+ −21.7 (−12.8 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 293, SP+ −14.7 (−5.5 vs. talent)Idaho: talent 262, SP+ −12.2 (−2.3 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 256, SP+ −19.5 (−9.4 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 251, SP+ −18.6 (−8.4 vs. talent)Army: talent 186, SP+ −21.7 (−10.3 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 71, SP+ +4.7, expected −12.7Air Force
One dot per FBS team, 2015. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is Air Force'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, 2015
Made the numbers' call

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

66 of 9669%93rd of 128
FBS median 71%
Win probability given up

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

1.1 ptsper game45th of 128
0.16 expected wins over 14 games, FBS median 1.3 pts
When going was clearly right

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

9 of 1560%
FBS teams went 56%

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 0.10 of the 0.16 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 USUQ3 8:20 4th & 1 at AF 19, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
  2. at SDSUQ4 3:35 4th & 5 at AF 30, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
  3. at BOISQ4 2:11 4th & 1 at BOIS 28, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
  4. at BOISQ4 9:46 4th & 2 at midfield, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
  5. at BOISQ2 8:45 4th & 1 at BOIS 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
  6. at SDSUQ2 4:42 4th & 3 at SDSU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
  7. vs USUQ4 2:52 4th & 5 at USU 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
  8. at SDSUQ2 10:32 4th & 4 at SDSU 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
Every call this season (96)
Wk 1 · vs MORG · W 63-71 of 2 agreed
  1. Q2 5:444th & 17 at AF 27, up 28 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q4 1:474th & 6 at MORG 38, up 56 · PuntedClose call
Wk 2 · vs SJSU · W 37-1610 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 11:494th & 8 at AF 3, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 6:054th & 1 at AF 24, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q1 2:114th & 14 at AF 21, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 14:464th & 18 at AF 39, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 14:124th & 3 at AF 32, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 10:554th & 1 at SJSU 37, up 1 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q3 3:404th & 10 at SJSU 28, up 1 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 15:004th & 17 at AF 34, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 7:004th & 1 at SJSU 1, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  10. Q4 0:074th & 13 at AF 33, up 21 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 3 · at MSU · L 21-353 of 4 agreed
  1. Q1 12:594th & 14 at AF 21, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 8:174th & 5 at AF 13, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 4:164th & 3 at AF 27, down 14 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q4 13:474th & 3 at MSU 3, down 21 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 5 · at NAVY · L 11-338 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 2 at AF 33, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 11:054th & 1 at NAVY 1, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 14:474th & 1 at NAVY 47, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 0:594th & 6 at AF 38, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 9:264th & 5 at AF 30, down 27 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 4:144th & 6 at NAVY 21, down 27 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 13:464th & 1 at NAVY 1, down 24 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 8:004th & 14 at AF 20, down 19 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 6 · vs WYO · W 31-174 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 1 at AF 34, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 11:594th & 12 at AF 34, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 6:224th & 2 at WYO 30, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q1 4:244th & 4 at AF 7, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 12:144th & 6 at AF 24, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 7:304th & 7 at WYO 32, up 18 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  7. Q4 2:254th & 5 at AF 26, up 21 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 7 · at CSU · L 23-385 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 2 at AF 28, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 8:244th & 1 at AF 31, tied · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 15:004th & 3 at CSU 33, down 8 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 15:004th & 4 at CSU 13, down 8 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q3 6:434th & 1 at AF 45, down 22 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 10:184th & 11 at CSU 24, down 25 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 4:554th & 4 at CSU 46, down 22 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 2:154th & 4 at CSU 16, down 15 · Went for itClose call
Wk 8 · vs FRES · W 42-146 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 12:434th & 9 at AF 32, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 10:144th & 9 at AF 42, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 6:224th & 1 at FRES 6, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 10:554th & 2 at FRES 20, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q2 5:064th & 1 at FRES 42, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q2 0:544th & 6 at midfield, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q3 11:174th & 3 at FRES 35, up 14 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 11:584th & 1 at FRES 43, up 28 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q4 5:084th & 7 at FRES 25, up 28 · Went for itClose call
Wk 9 · at HAW · W 58-78 of 8 agreed
  1. Q2 14:044th & 9 at AF 39, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 6:564th & 14 at HAW 23, up 21 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 4:504th & 1 at AF 29, up 24 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 0:004th & 13 at HAW 19, up 31 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q3 15:004th & 3 at AF 32, up 34 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 4:514th & 17 at HAW 27, up 34 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q3 2:584th & 1 at HAW 33, up 37 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 2:044th & 9 at AF 25, up 51 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 10 · vs ARMY · W 20-33 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 15:004th & 1 at AF 34, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 9:314th & 1 at AF 13, tied · PuntedClose call
  3. Q1 5:384th & 7 at AF 49, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 15:004th & 1 at AF 41, tied · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 8:304th & 2 at ARMY 5, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  6. Q3 12:214th & 2 at AF 23, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 14:554th & 7 at ARMY 25, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 11 · vs USU · W 35-281 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 2:084th & 2 at AF 30, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 14:094th & 4 at AF 40, tied · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 9:144th & 8 at USU 42, tied · PuntedClose call
  4. Q3 10:524th & 7 at USU 40, up 14 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 8:204th & 1 at AF 19, up 14 · Punted−2.5 pts
  6. Q4 15:004th & 1 at USU 10, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 2:524th & 5 at USU 41, up 7 · PuntedClose call
Wk 12 · at BOIS · W 37-302 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 11:324th & 13 at AF 38, down 10 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 6:504th & 1 at BOIS 1, down 10 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  3. Q2 8:454th & 1 at BOIS 48, down 3 · Punted−1.1 pts
  4. Q3 8:274th & 7 at BOIS 14, up 18 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q4 9:464th & 2 at midfield, up 14 · Punted−1.5 pts
  6. Q4 2:114th & 1 at BOIS 28, up 7 · Kicked a field goal−1.8 pts
Wk 13 · at UNM · L 35-474 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 6:064th & 8 at AF 29, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 3:384th & 8 at UNM 46, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 13:404th & 4 at AF 48, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 8:164th & 2 at AF 33, down 14 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 15:004th & 3 at AF 32, down 17 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 12:094th & 8 at AF 31, down 6 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 14 · at SDSU · L 24-276 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 9:524th & 9 at AF 21, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 4:394th & 6 at AF 37, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 10:324th & 4 at SDSU 41, tied · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 4:424th & 3 at SDSU 3, tied · Kicked a field goal−1.0 pts
  5. Q3 1:044th & 8 at AF 39, tied · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 11:494th & 2 at SDSU 2, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 8:044th & 4 at AF 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 3:354th & 5 at AF 30, down 3 · Punted−2.0 pts
  9. Q4 0:004th & 6 at SDSU 49, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
Lockheed Martin Armed Forces Bowl · vs CAL · L 36-555 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 4:394th & 9 at AF 32, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 0:294th & 5 at AF 27, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 9:384th & 12 at AF 40, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 0:464th & 10 at AF 31, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 9:004th & 1 at AF 48, down 21 · 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.

55 of 6190%
FBS median 92%
Win probability given up

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

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

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

-
Went for two 2 times, converted 2
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. vs SJSUQ4 7:00 Touchdown, up 13 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.3 pts
  2. at CSUQ4 4:22 Touchdown, down 16 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.1 pts
  3. vs CALQ3 1:30 Touchdown, down 18 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (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, 2015
8-6vs. 7.7 expected+0.3 wins

55th 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
  2. W
  3. L
  4. L
  5. W
  6. L
  7. W
  8. W
  9. W
  10. W
  11. W
  12. L
  13. L
  14. L
What moved it, 2015
+0.7 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
+0.5 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

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+0.56
  • Possession & field position−0.01
  • Clock+0.01
  • Timeouts−0.01
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09
Game by game

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.

Season arc, 2015

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

Biggest swings of 2015

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

Stolen wins

Air Force'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

Air Force'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

Air Force'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 ›
$103.29+11.7% over the past year
Series & rivalries

Air Force'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