Air Force

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1351st
  Defense+0.1341st
• 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.
  Offense46.4%78th
  Defense40.4%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1116th
  Defense+1.431st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0746th
  Defense−0.0484th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3893rd
  Defense+0.358th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.6%81st
  Defense43.8%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%32nd
  Defense34.3%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0163rd
  Defense2.4097th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%91st
  Defense21.0%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.1%98th
  Defense13.4%9th

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, 2018

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

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

Players, 2018

1. Isaiah SandersQB190 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 82nd of 225 QBs
   1.03WAR0.65 to 1.40
2. Donald Hammond IIIQB141 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 119th of 225 QBs
   0.64WAR0.31 to 0.96
3. Cole FaganFB151 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 61st of 351 RBs
   0.49WAR0.37 to 0.62
4. Kadin RemsbergRB102 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 87th of 351 RBs
   0.41WAR0.32 to 0.50
5. Taven BirdowFB37 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 251st of 351 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.16
6. Marcus BennettWR30 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 122nd of 434 WRs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
7. Ronald ClevelandWR48 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 172nd of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
8. Arion WorthmanQB19 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 212th of 225 QBs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.10

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  186186129th of 130Roster talent: 186, 129th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  109109119th of 130Recruiting: 109, 119th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%62nd of 129Returning production: 65%, 62nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.8−1.885th of 130SP+ rating: −1.8, 85th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.11 of the 0.15 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 SDSUQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at SDSU 40, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at FAUQ4 10:41 4th & 18 at FAU 40, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
3. at WYOQ3 8:06 4th & 1 at AF 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs NAVYQ2 10:24 4th & 4 at NAVY 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs BOISQ3 0:20 4th & 2 at BOIS 20, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at WYOQ4 8:44 4th & 4 at WYO 4, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at FAUQ2 11:51 4th & 1 at AF 41, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at ARMYQ2 13:02 4th & 2 at ARMY 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

101st 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

   STBK
2. L

   FAU
3. L

   USU
4. L

   NEV
5. W

   NAVY
6. L

   SDSU
7. W

   UNLV
8. L

   BOIS
9. L

   ARMY
10. W

    UNM
11. L

    WYO
12. W

    CSU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.63
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.08

Game by game

• STBKW 38-0 vs STBK85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• FAUL 26-33 at FAU33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• USUL 32-42 at USU24% → 3%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• NEVL 25-28 vs NEV55% → 18%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• NAVYW 35-7 vs NAVY42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +52, Clock +1
• SDSUL 17-21 at SDSU23% → 12%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2
• UNLVW 41-35 at UNLV72% → 91%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• BOISL 38-48 vs BOIS23% → 3%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• ARMYL 14-17 at ARMY35% → 5%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• UNMW 42-24 vs UNM81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts −1
• WYOL 27-35 at WYO43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• CSUW 27-19 vs CSU84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1

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.