Air Force

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2792nd
  Defense0.0086th
• 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.
  Offense49.3%92nd
  Defense38.4%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.073rd
  Defense+1.1191st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2696th
  Defense0.0081st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4798th
  Defense+0.2049th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.3%94th
  Defense46.2%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%52nd
  Defense22.6%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5997th
  Defense3.0549th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense9.2%99th
  Defense14.2%21st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense9.9%99th
  Defense19.3%87th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

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

Players, 2022

1. Haaziq DanielsQB184 plays · +0.301 pts/play · 70th of 234 QBs
   1.04WAR0.67 to 1.49
2. Brad RobertsRB254 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 9th of 384 RBs
   0.71WAR0.51 to 0.94
3. John Lee Eldridge IIIRB73 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 110th of 384 RBs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.35
4. David CormierWR20 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 277th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
5. Matthew DaporePK14 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 67th of 110 kickers
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
6. Emmanuel MichelFB17 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 298th of 384 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
7. DeAndre HughesWR12 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 406th of 455 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Ben JeffersonWR7 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 434th of 455 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2022

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 0.12 of the 0.25 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 NAVYQ4 4:14 4th & 3 at NAVY 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
2. at ARMYQ4 6:13 4th & 4 at ARMY 37, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. at SDSUQ3 2:25 4th & 2 at SDSU 27, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs NAVYQ3 0:10 4th & 2 at AF 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at USUQ4 1:42 4th & 4 at USU 32, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at WYOQ3 2:52 4th & 2 at AF 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs BOISQ4 1:25 4th & 13 at BOIS 21, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs BOISQ4 1:25 4th & 13 at BOIS 21, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

67th of 131 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

   UNI
2. W

   COLO
3. L

   WYO
4. W

   NEV
5. W

   NAVY
6. L

   USU
7. W

   UNLV
8. L

   BOIS
9. W

   ARMY
10. W

    UNM
11. W

    CSU
12. W

    SDSU
13. W

    BAY

What moved it, 2022

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+0.99
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.22

Game by game

• UNIW 48-17 vs UNI86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• COLOW 41-10 vs COLO86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• WYOL 14-17 at WYO89% → 8%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• NEVW 48-20 vs NEV95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• NAVYW 13-10 vs NAVY88% → 96%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• USUL 27-34 at USU78% → 2%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −50, Clock −1
• UNLVW 42-7 at UNLV77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• BOISL 14-19 vs BOIS56% → 6%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• ARMYW 13-7 at ARMY74% → 95%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• UNMW 35-3 vs UNM93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• CSUW 24-12 vs CSU93% → 98%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• SDSUW 13-3 at SDSU59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• BAYW 30-15 vs BAY44% → 99%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +45, 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.