Army

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1559th
  Defense+0.1337th
• 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.
  Offense47.8%86th
  Defense44.1%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.063rd
  Defense+1.1767th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2194th
  Defense+0.1132nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.162nd
  Defense+0.1847th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.8%88th
  Defense49.9%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%24th
  Defense30.6%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3291st
  Defense3.1617th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense10.8%99th
  Defense16.1%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.8%99th
  Defense15.3%5th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2019

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
   RICE
2. L
   MICH
3. W
   UTSA
4. W
   MORG
5. L
   TULN
6. L
   WKU
7. L
   GAST
8. L
   SJSU
9. L
   AF
10. W
    MASS
11. W
    VMI
12. L
    HAW
13. L
    NAVY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Army.

Players, 2019

1. Kelvin Hopkins Jr.QB157 plays · +0.386 pts/play · 69th of 228 QBs
   1.13WAR0.82 to 1.48
2. Christian AndersonQB51 plays · +0.364 pts/play · 152nd of 228 QBs
   0.35WAR0.10 to 0.54
3. Connor SlomkaRB105 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 122nd of 349 RBs
   0.34WAR0.26 to 0.42
4. Sandon McCoyRB101 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 123rd of 349 RBs
   0.34WAR0.23 to 0.45
5. Jabari LawsQB69 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 160th of 228 QBs
   0.31WAR0.08 to 0.54
6. Kell WalkerRB47 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 255th of 349 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Artice Hobbs IVRB21 plays · +0.041 pts/play · 302nd of 349 RBs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  265265128th of 130Roster talent: 265, 128th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118116th of 130Recruiting: 118, 116th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%58th of 130Returning production: 64%, 58th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.1−2.172nd of 130SP+ rating: −2.1, 72nd of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.08 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 MICHQ4 6:28 4th & 3 at ARMY 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. vs TULNQ4 10:17 4th & 11 at TULN 31, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
3. vs TULNQ2 0:11 4th & 7 at TULN 36, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs SJSUQ4 3:41 4th & 21 at ARMY 38, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at HAWQ2 0:47 4th & 16 at HAW 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at HAWQ4 11:44 4th & 5 at HAW 30, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at WKUQ2 7:12 4th & 2 at ARMY 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs TULNQ4 3:39 4th & 10 at TULN 21, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

126th of 130 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. W

   RICE
2. L

   MICH
3. W

   UTSA
4. W

   MORG
5. L

   TULN
6. L

   WKU
7. L

   GAST
8. L

   SJSU
9. L

   AF
10. W

    MASS
11. W

    VMI
12. L

    HAW
13. L

    NAVY

What moved it, 2019

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−1.92
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.01

Game by game

• RICEW 14-7 vs RICE93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• MICHL 21-24 at MICH6% → 56%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +50: Timeouts +17, Clock −10
• UTSAW 31-13 at UTSA87% → 98%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• MORGW 52-21 vs MORG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TULNL 33-42 vs TULN44% → 5%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• WKUL 8-17 at WKU61% → 4%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• GASTL 21-28 at GAST58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• SJSUL 29-34 vs SJSU74% → 5%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• AFL 13-17 at AF13% → 6%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• MASSW 63-7 vs MASS98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• VMIW 47-6 vs VMI71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• HAWL 31-52 at HAW43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position −1
• NAVYL 7-31 at NAVY24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Clock −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.