Army

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0733rd
  Defense−0.0595th
• 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.
  Offense40.7%34th
  Defense37.2%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1310th
  Defense+1.2741st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0960th
  Defense−0.0992nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.096th
  Defense0.0091st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%46th
  Defense43.1%85th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.9%17th
  Defense26.1%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8952nd
  Defense2.4293rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%89th
  Defense26.2%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.4%96th
  Defense19.5%90th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   MTSU
2. W
   ULM
3. L
   CIN
4. W
   ACU
5. W
   CIT
6. W
   UTSA
7. W
   MER
8. L
   TULN
9. W
   GASO
10. W
    NAVY
11. W
    AF
12. L
    WVU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Army.

Players, 2020

1. Tyhier TylerQB127 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 55th of 212 QBs
   0.63WAR0.03 to 1.14
2. Christian AndersonQB124 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 79th of 212 QBs
   0.42WAR0.05 to 0.78
3. Jakobi BuchananRB72 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 118th of 338 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.32
4. Sandon McCoyRB63 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 158th of 338 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.28
5. Tyrell RobinsonRB48 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 204th of 338 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.19
6. Zach HardingP33 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 20th of 77 punters
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Brandon WaltersRB5 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 318th of 338 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
8. Artice Hobbs IVRB2 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 329th of 338 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  152152126th of 127Roster talent: 152, 126th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  126126112th of 127Recruiting: 126, 112th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%59th of 127Returning production: 65%, 59th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.7+2.752nd of 127SP+ rating: +2.7, 52nd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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 GASOQ4 2:27 4th & 5 at ARMY 49, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs NAVYQ4 14:18 4th & 7 at NAVY 36, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs NAVYQ3 8:17 4th & 2 at NAVY 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs ULMQ3 11:03 4th & 10 at ARMY 35, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at TULNQ4 15:00 4th & 8 at TULN 10, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs NAVYQ4 9:21 4th & 8 at NAVY 33, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs CITQ4 0:19 4th & 6 at CIT 35, up 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at TULNQ2 0:30 4th & 1 at ARMY 41, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

16th of 127 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

   MTSU
2. W

   ULM
3. L

   CIN
4. W

   ACU
5. W

   CIT
6. W

   UTSA
7. W

   MER
8. L

   TULN
9. W

   GASO
10. W

    NAVY
11. W

    AF
12. L

    WVU

What moved it, 2020

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+0.95
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• MTSUW 42-0 vs MTSU57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +1
• ULMW 37-7 vs ULM94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• CINL 10-24 at CIN18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23
• ACUW 55-23 vs ACU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• CITW 14-9 vs CIT97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts +1
• UTSAW 28-16 at UTSA69% → 96%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• MERW 49-3 vs MER74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• TULNL 12-38 at TULN44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• GASOW 28-27 vs GASO57% → 59%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +2: Possession & field position −3, Timeouts +3
• NAVYW 15-0 vs NAVY72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• AFW 10-7 vs AF47% → 92%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• WVUL 21-24 vs WVU22% → 7%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2

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.