Army

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0628th
  Defense+0.1427th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%39th
  Defense43.2%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2050th
  Defense+1.1856th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0543rd
  Defense+0.0457th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1550th
  Defense+0.328th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%55th
  Defense47.2%51st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%23rd
  Defense34.8%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8852nd
  Defense2.7857th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%69th
  Defense19.0%37th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense1.7%33rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Army 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. L
   FOR
2. L
   CONN
3. L
   WAKE
4. W
   EMU
5. L
   PSU
6. L
   DUKE
7. W
   BUCK
8. L
   RICE
9. L
   AF
10. L
    TULN
11. L
    RUTG
12. L
    NAVY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Army.

Players, 2015

1. A.J. SchurrQB85 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 164th of 205 QBs
   0.28WAR−0.04 to 0.59
2. Aaron KemperRB93 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 157th of 333 RBs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.23
3. Chris CarterQB63 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 187th of 205 QBs
   0.11WAR−0.10 to 0.29
4. Matt GiachintaRB45 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 223rd of 333 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
5. Alex TardieuP41 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 52nd of 92 punters
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.13
6. Daniel GrochowskiPK9 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 106th of 115 kickers
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Ahmad BradshawQB113 plays · +0.008 pts/play · 200th of 205 QBs
   0.02WAR−0.42 to 0.41
8. John TrainorRB10 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 263rd of 333 RBs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03

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 Army'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  186186127th of 128Roster talent: 186, 127th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9494122nd of 128Recruiting: 94, 122nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  29%29%119th of 127Returning production: 29%, 119th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.7−21.7126th of 128SP+ rating: −21.7, 126th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Army's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.13 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 RICEQ4 2:13 4th & 2 at RICE 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs WAKEQ4 9:44 4th & 2 at WAKE 22, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at AFQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at ARMY 44, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs RUTGQ3 11:12 4th & 10 at RUTG 23, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
5. vs WAKEQ3 10:05 4th & 2 at ARMY 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs BUCKQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at ARMY 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at RICEQ4 10:37 4th & 3 at ARMY 46, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at CONNQ2 5:07 4th & 2 at ARMY 28, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

126th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Army's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   FOR
2. L

   CONN
3. L

   WAKE
4. W

   EMU
5. L

   PSU
6. L

   DUKE
7. W

   BUCK
8. L

   RICE
9. L

   AF
10. L

    TULN
11. L

    RUTG
12. L

    NAVY

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Army'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−2.57
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.07

Game by game

• FORL 35-37 vs FOR72% → 8%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• CONNL 17-22 at CONN30% → 9%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• WAKEL 14-17 vs WAKE35% → 5%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• EMUW 58-36 at EMU47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +57, Possession & field position −1
• PSUL 14-20 at PSU54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• DUKEL 3-44 vs DUKE18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• BUCKW 21-14 vs BUCK94% → 97%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• RICEL 31-38 at RICE76% → 11%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position +2
• AFL 3-20 at AF10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• TULNL 31-34 vs TULN50% → 5%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• RUTGL 21-31 vs RUTG30% → 4%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −37, Clock −3
• NAVYL 17-21 at NAVY6% → 11%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1

Points of win probability, from Army's side.

Closest call

NAVY 11-17 ARMY (2023) - Army dropped to a 1.3% win probability before pulling it out.