Air Force

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1671st
  Defense+0.1054th
• 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.
  Offense48.5%89th
  Defense37.0%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.002nd
  Defense+1.521st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1471st
  Defense+0.0175th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3588th
  Defense+0.2135th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.1%91st
  Defense39.3%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%61st
  Defense33.2%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2384th
  Defense2.3495th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.6%96th
  Defense22.5%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.6%99th
  Defense18.8%79th

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, 2016

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
   ACU
2. W
   GAST
3. W
   USU
4. W
   NAVY
5. L
   WYO
6. L
   UNM
7. L
   HAW
8. W
   FRES
9. W
   ARMY
10. W
    CSU
11. W
    SJSU
12. W
    BOIS
13. W
    USA

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

Players, 2016

1. Arion WorthmanQB138 plays · +0.340 pts/play · 95th of 218 QBs
   0.88WAR0.51 to 1.22
2. Nate RomineQB160 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 118th of 218 QBs
   0.58WAR0.30 to 0.90
3. Timothy McVeyRB63 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 125th of 347 RBs
   0.30WAR0.24 to 0.37
4. D.J. JohnsonRB98 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 138th of 347 RBs
   0.27WAR0.16 to 0.39
5. Jacobi OwensRB98 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 142nd of 347 RBs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.37
6. Shayne DavernRB70 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 159th of 347 RBs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.30
7. Jalen RobinetteWR51 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 67th of 417 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.30
8. Luke Strebel?21 plays · +0.468 pts/play
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.26

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

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  4545128th of 128Roster talent: 45, 128th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  102102116th of 128Recruiting: 102, 116th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%87th of 128Returning production: 56%, 87th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.4+4.458th of 128SP+ rating: +4.4, 58th 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

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.20 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. at SJSUQ4 12:03 4th & 2 at SJSU 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. at USUQ4 12:02 4th & 1 at AF 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. vs HAWQ3 6:21 4th & 22 at AF 18, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
4. at USUQ2 5:25 4th & 1 at AF 25, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at WYOQ3 8:55 4th & 1 at AF 34, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs BOISQ4 8:50 4th & 4 at BOIS 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. at FRESQ3 2:50 4th & 7 at FRES 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at ARMYQ2 7:39 4th & 3 at ARMY 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

65th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   ACU
2. W

   GAST
3. W

   USU
4. W

   NAVY
5. L

   WYO
6. L

   UNM
7. L

   HAW
8. W

   FRES
9. W

   ARMY
10. W

    CSU
11. W

    SJSU
12. W

    BOIS
13. W

    USA

What moved it, 2016

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+1.84
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.94

Game by game

• ACUW 37-21 vs ACU99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +3
• GASTW 48-14 vs GAST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• USUW 27-20 at USU58% → 95%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• NAVYW 28-14 vs NAVY79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• WYOL 26-35 at WYO81% → 4%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• UNML 40-45 vs UNM82% → 3%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• HAWL 27-34 vs HAW86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts −4
• FRESW 31-21 at FRES80% → 97%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• ARMYW 31-12 at ARMY55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• SJSUW 41-38 at SJSU76% → 93%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• BOISW 27-20 vs BOIS24% → 96%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +3
• USAW 45-21 vs USA81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23

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.