Army

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1563rd
  Defense+0.0476th
• 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.
  Offense47.1%80th
  Defense41.0%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0812th
  Defense+1.1946th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1988th
  Defense+0.0172nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.102nd
  Defense+0.0873rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.1%87th
  Defense46.7%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%42nd
  Defense30.2%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4298th
  Defense2.5582nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.5%98th
  Defense21.5%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.8%98th
  Defense17.1%63rd

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, 2016

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. W
   TEM
2. W
   RICE
3. W
   UTEP
4. L
   BUF
5. L
   DUKE
6. W
   LAF
7. L
   UNT
8. W
   WAKE
9. L
   AF
10. L
    ND
11. W
    MORG
12. W
    NAVY
13. W
    UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Army.

Players, 2016

1. Ahmad BradshawQB199 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 117th of 218 QBs
   0.59WAR0.11 to 1.13
2. Andy DavidsonRB150 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 64th of 347 RBs
   0.45WAR0.30 to 0.60
3. Darnell WoolfolkRB87 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 131st of 347 RBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.38
4. Kell WalkerRB50 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 176th of 347 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.26
5. Jordan AsberryRB47 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 196th of 347 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
6. Tyler CampbellRB32 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 220th of 347 RBs
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.18
7. Edgar PoeWR19 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 271st of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Chris CarterQB33 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 199th of 218 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.05 to 0.17

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  132132127th of 128Roster talent: 132, 127th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9999121st of 128Recruiting: 99, 121st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  87%87%23rd of 128Returning production: 87%, 23rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.9−9.9102nd of 128SP+ rating: −9.9, 102nd 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.11 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 BUFQ4 8:16 4th & 1 at ARMY 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. vs AFQ2 7:29 4th & 1 at ARMY 17, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at UNTQ4 14:04 4th & 2 at ARMY 17, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs NAVYQ4 13:29 4th & 3 at ARMY 28, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs AFQ4 8:50 4th & 7 at AF 10, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at WAKEQ2 7:43 4th & 12 at WAKE 32, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs RICEQ4 8:23 4th & 3 at RICE 6, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at WAKEQ3 12:02 4th & 5 at WAKE 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

36th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   TEM
2. W

   RICE
3. W

   UTEP
4. L

   BUF
5. L

   DUKE
6. W

   LAF
7. L

   UNT
8. W

   WAKE
9. L

   AF
10. L

    ND
11. W

    MORG
12. W

    NAVY
13. W

    UNT

What moved it, 2016

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+1.00
• Clock−0.17
• Timeouts+0.40
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.45

Game by game

• TEMW 28-13 at TEM8% → 98%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +90: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• RICEW 31-14 vs RICE75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +31, Clock −1
• UTEPW 66-14 at UTEP58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• BUFL 20-23 at BUF88% → 17%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +22
• LAFW 62-7 vs LAF98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• UNTL 18-35 vs UNT90% → 1%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3
• WAKEW 21-13 at WAKE27% → 97%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +56, Clock +4
• AFL 12-31 vs AF45% → 1%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• NDL 6-44 at ND18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21
• MORGW 60-3 vs MORG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• NAVYW 21-17 vs NAVY28% → 95%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• UNTW 38-31 at UNT79% → 82%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +14

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.