Air Force

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2387th
  Defense+0.371st
• 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.
  Offense47.3%87th
  Defense49.8%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2241st
  Defense+1.3610th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2088th
  Defense+0.271st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4296th
  Defense+0.461st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.0%84th
  Defense53.3%4th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.7%72nd
  Defense40.4%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2788th
  Defense3.307th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.9%99th
  Defense13.2%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense9.0%99th
  Defense10.7%2nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   BUCK
2. L
   USU
3. L
   BOIS
4. L
   HAW
5. L
   NAVY
6. L
   UNLV
7. W
   WYO
8. L
   ARMY
9. W
   SJSU
10. L
    CONN
11. L
    UNM
12. W
    CSU

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

Players, 2025

1. Liam SzarkaQB302 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 78th of 231 QBs
   1.14WAR0.50 to 1.83
2. Owen AllenRB125 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 92nd of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.29
3. Cade HarrisWR101 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 100th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.28
4. Dylan CarsonRB78 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 179th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
5. Kade FrewRB65 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 187th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
6. Bruin FleischmannTE26 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 14th of 213 TEs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
7. Kemper HodgesQB54 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 215th of 231 QBs
   0.04WAR−0.12 to 0.18
8. Josh JohnsonQB45 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 215th of 231 QBs
   0.03WAR−0.06 to 0.13

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, 2025

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.09 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 USUQ4 7:15 4th & 12 at AF 23, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.8 pts
2. vs BOISQ3 1:10 4th & 4 at BOIS 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. at SJSUQ2 0:24 4th & 8 at SJSU 36, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs BOISQ2 1:05 4th & 1 at AF 21, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs BOISQ2 1:05 4th & 1 at AF 21, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs HAWQ2 2:21 4th & 2 at AF 33, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at CONNQ3 5:17 4th & 4 at CONN 19, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at NAVYQ2 10:29 4th & 4 at NAVY 7, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

111th of 136 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

   BUCK
2. L

   USU
3. L

   BOIS
4. L

   HAW
5. L

   NAVY
6. L

   UNLV
7. W

   WYO
8. L

   ARMY
9. W

   SJSU
10. L

    CONN
11. L

    UNM
12. W

    CSU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.00
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.21
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.23

Game by game

• BUCKW 49-13 vs BUCK97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• USUL 30-49 at USU61% → 55%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −6: Timeouts +44, Scoreboard −31
• BOISL 37-49 vs BOIS19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• HAWL 35-44 vs HAW67% → 4%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• NAVYL 31-34 at NAVY16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position −1
• UNLVL 48-51 at UNLV31% → 32%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −9, Possession & field position +5
• WYOW 24-21 vs WYO53% → 98%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +60, Timeouts −20
• ARMYL 17-20 vs ARMY51% → 7%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• SJSUW 26-16 at SJSU32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• CONNL 16-26 at CONN26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• UNML 3-20 vs UNM50% → 1%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −50, Clock −5
• CSUW 42-21 at CSU53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3

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.