Air Force

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1259th
  Defense+0.239th
• 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.
  Offense48.0%93rd
  Defense43.1%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.033rd
  Defense+1.3410th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1378th
  Defense+0.217th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1036th
  Defense+0.3013th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.2%90th
  Defense48.2%38th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.6%73rd
  Defense32.6%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1181st
  Defense3.0329th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%95th
  Defense19.1%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%88th
  Defense12.1%4th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   VMI
2. L
   MICH
3. L
   SDSU
4. L
   UNM
5. L
   NAVY
6. W
   UNLV
7. W
   NEV
8. W
   CSU
9. L
   ARMY
10. L
    WYO
11. L
    BOIS
12. W
    USU

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

Players, 2017

1. Arion WorthmanQB282 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 69th of 226 QBs
   1.12WAR0.45 to 1.75
2. Timothy McVeyRB123 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 38th of 352 RBs
   0.47WAR0.37 to 0.56
3. Taven BirdowFB87 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 113th of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.34
4. Isaiah SandersQB56 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 168th of 226 QBs
   0.26WAR0.06 to 0.43
5. Jacob StaffordFB58 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 164th of 352 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.25
6. Luke Strebel?12 plays · +0.557 pts/play
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
7. Ronald ClevelandWR40 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 242nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Nate RomineQB12 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 210th of 226 QBs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  2121130th of 130Roster talent: 21, 130th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  106106118th of 130Recruiting: 106, 118th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%61st of 128Returning production: 63%, 61st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.0−11.0104th of 128SP+ rating: −11.0, 104th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 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 SDSUQ4 5:33 4th & 3 at AF 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. at CSUQ3 0:51 4th & 3 at CSU 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs WYOQ3 7:47 4th & 2 at WYO 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs UNLVQ2 14:35 4th & 22 at UNLV 25, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
5. vs WYOQ4 5:37 4th & 4 at WYO 12, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
6. vs USUQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at AF 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs WYOQ4 1:46 4th & 9 at WYO 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
8. vs SDSUQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at AF 29, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

96th of 130 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

   VMI
2. L

   MICH
3. L

   SDSU
4. L

   UNM
5. L

   NAVY
6. W

   UNLV
7. W

   NEV
8. W

   CSU
9. L

   ARMY
10. L

    WYO
11. L

    BOIS
12. W

    USU

What moved it, 2017

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−0.89
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04

Game by game

• VMIW 62-0 vs VMI98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MICHL 13-29 at MICH6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −11, Clock +1
• SDSUL 24-28 vs SDSU45% → 7%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• UNML 38-56 at UNM59% → 2%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −45, Possession & field position −1
• NAVYL 45-48 at NAVY31% → 20%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position −2
• UNLVW 34-30 vs UNLV75% → 94%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• NEVW 45-42 at NEV69% → 94%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +39, Clock +3
• CSUW 45-28 at CSU22% → 99%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +64, Clock +2
• ARMYL 0-21 vs ARMY67% → 0%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• WYOL 14-28 vs WYO58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• BOISL 19-44 at BOIS12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• USUW 38-35 vs USU56% → 90%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +31, 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.