Army

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1561st
  Defense+0.1241st
• 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.
  Offense44.9%68th
  Defense47.7%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.072nd
  Defense+1.0797th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1984th
  Defense+0.1715th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1115th
  Defense+0.2825th
• 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%82nd
  Defense53.0%8th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.6%6th
  Defense32.8%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3990th
  Defense3.419th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense9.2%99th
  Defense13.3%13th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.3%94th
  Defense12.4%6th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   CCU
2. L
   UTSA
3. W
   VILL
4. L
   GAST
5. L
   WAKE
6. W
   COLG
7. W
   ULM
8. L
   AF
9. L
   TROY
10. W
    CONN
11. W
    MASS
12. W
    NAVY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Army.

Players, 2022

1. Tyhier TylerQB140 plays · +0.368 pts/play · 80th of 234 QBs
   0.97WAR0.58 to 1.36
2. Jakobi BuchananRB65 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 133rd of 384 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.29
3. Jemel JonesQB67 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 168th of 234 QBs
   0.22WAR0.04 to 0.40
4. Tyson RileyRB71 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 192nd of 384 RBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
5. Cade BallardQB60 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 190th of 234 QBs
   0.13WAR−0.01 to 0.28
6. Tyrell RobinsonRB30 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 263rd of 384 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
7. Isaiah AlstonWR21 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 356th of 455 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Braheam MurphyRB13 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 317th of 384 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  1717129th of 129Roster talent: 17, 129th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  107107123rd of 129Recruiting: 107, 123rd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%61st of 128Returning production: 62%, 61st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.5−1.572nd of 129SP+ rating: −1.5, 72nd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.11 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. vs UTSAQ4 0:00 4th & 2 at ARMY 33, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−4.5 pts
2. at TROYQ3 6:01 4th & 2 at TROY 42, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. at TROYQ4 5:17 4th & 7 at TROY 44, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs GASTQ4 3:14 4th & 11 at GAST 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. vs GASTQ4 3:14 4th & 11 at GAST 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
6. vs ULMQ2 8:16 4th & 6 at ULM 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at TROYQ2 8:42 4th & 4 at TROY 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs AFQ2 1:18 4th & 7 at AF 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

83rd of 131 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

   CCU
2. L

   UTSA
3. W

   VILL
4. L

   GAST
5. L

   WAKE
6. W

   COLG
7. W

   ULM
8. L

   AF
9. L

   TROY
10. W

    CONN
11. W

    MASS
12. W

    NAVY

What moved it, 2022

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−0.27
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.55
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.43

Game by game

• CCUL 28-38 at CCU38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −1
• UTSAL 38-41 vs UTSA35% → 15%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −20: Timeouts −32, Scoreboard −3
• VILLW 49-10 vs VILL83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +19
• GASTL 14-31 vs GAST66% → 1%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• WAKEL 10-45 at WAKE11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• COLGW 42-17 vs COLG97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ULMW 48-24 vs ULM64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• AFL 7-13 vs AF26% → 5%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• TROYL 9-10 at TROY26% → 10%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• CONNW 34-17 vs CONN73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• MASSW 44-7 at MASS87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• NAVYW 20-17 vs NAVY47% → 80%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −25

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.