Air Force

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1972nd
  Defense+0.0671st
• 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.
  Offense45.5%78th
  Defense39.2%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.128th
  Defense+1.2459th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1884th
  Defense+0.0271st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4593rd
  Defense+0.1478th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%79th
  Defense44.7%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.5%28th
  Defense28.5%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4895th
  Defense2.6792nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense9.3%99th
  Defense18.8%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense9.9%98th
  Defense15.8%41st

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   RMU
2. W
   SHSU
3. W
   USU
4. W
   SJSU
5. W
   SDSU
6. W
   WYO
7. W
   NAVY
8. W
   CSU
9. L
   ARMY
10. L
    HAW
11. L
    UNLV
12. L
    BOIS
13. W
    JMU

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

Players, 2023

1. Zac LarrierQB173 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 101st of 250 QBs
   0.83WAR0.41 to 1.22
2. Emmanuel MichelFB171 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 67th of 383 RBs
   0.32WAR0.18 to 0.45
3. John Lee Eldridge IIIRB80 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 93rd of 383 RBs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.34
4. Dylan CarsonRB54 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 178th of 383 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.19
5. Owen BurkRB60 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 182nd of 383 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
6. Jensen JonesQB48 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 217th of 250 QBs
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.20
7. Matthew DaporePK17 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 56th of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. John BushaQB28 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 226th of 250 QBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09

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, 2023

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 0.13 of the 0.18 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 UNLVQ4 0:23 4th & 8 at UNLV 8, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.3 pts
2. at SHSUQ4 13:41 4th & 2 at SHSU 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at NAVYQ3 11:44 4th & 1 at AF 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. at NAVYQ4 4:08 4th & 3 at NAVY 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at NAVYQ4 6:40 4th & 2 at AF 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at HAWQ4 6:20 4th & 4 at HAW 4, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at NAVYQ2 1:18 4th & 3 at NAVY 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs UNLVQ4 5:01 4th & 4 at AF 31, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

76th of 133 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

   RMU
2. W

   SHSU
3. W

   USU
4. W

   SJSU
5. W

   SDSU
6. W

   WYO
7. W

   NAVY
8. W

   CSU
9. L

   ARMY
10. L

    HAW
11. L

    UNLV
12. L

    BOIS
13. W

    JMU

What moved it, 2023

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+0.58
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.99

Game by game

• RMUW 42-7 vs RMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SHSUW 13-3 at SHSU79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• USUW 39-21 vs USU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +32, Clock −1
• SJSUW 45-20 at SJSU62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +44, Clock +1
• SDSUW 49-10 vs SDSU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −1
• WYOW 34-27 vs WYO77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• NAVYW 17-6 at NAVY76% → 98%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• CSUW 30-13 at CSU75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• ARMYL 3-23 vs ARMY87% → 1%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −66, Clock −3
• HAWL 13-27 at HAW89% → 1%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −56, Possession & field position −1
• UNLVL 27-31 vs UNLV60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• BOISL 19-27 at BOIS25% → 2%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• JMUW 31-21 vs JMU63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +32, 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.