Army

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0420th
  Defense+0.1438th
• 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.
  Offense39.6%24th
  Defense45.8%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.094th
  Defense+1.1489th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0736th
  Defense+0.1620th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1939th
  Defense+0.2345th
• 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%42nd
  Defense51.8%10th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.0%5th
  Defense29.3%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3383rd
  Defense3.465th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.8%95th
  Defense13.8%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.8%94th
  Defense12.7%3rd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   ULM
2. W
   DSU
3. W
   UTSA
4. L
   SYR
5. L
   BC
6. L
   TROY
7. L
   LSU
8. L
   MASS
9. W
   AF
10. W
    HC
11. W
    CCU
12. W
    NAVY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Army.

Players, 2023

1. Bryson DailyQB265 plays · +0.346 pts/play · 37th of 250 QBs
   1.72WAR1.07 to 2.36
2. Kanye UdohRB59 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 195th of 383 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
3. Jakobi BuchananRB43 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 211th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.15
4. Hayden ReedRB53 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 234th of 383 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
5. Tyrell RobinsonRB28 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 272nd of 383 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
6. Quinn MaretzkiPK13 plays · +0.284 pts/play · 76th of 113 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. Tyson RileyRB15 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 312th of 383 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
8. Ay'Jaun MarshallWR13 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 356th of 457 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2023

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.16 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 ULMQ3 4:40 4th & 1 at ULM 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs NAVYQ4 10:54 4th & 5 at NAVY 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs NAVYQ4 1:39 4th & 3 at ARMY 38, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs BCQ4 5:24 4th & 4 at ARMY 48, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. vs TROYQ4 10:16 4th & 20 at ARMY 45, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
6. at SYRQ4 10:17 4th & 8 at ARMY 27, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
7. vs NAVYQ3 10:31 4th & 6 at NAVY 39, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs TROYQ4 2:22 4th & 7 at TROY 12, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

46th of 133 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

   ULM
2. W

   DSU
3. W

   UTSA
4. L

   SYR
5. L

   BC
6. L

   TROY
7. L

   LSU
8. L

   MASS
9. W

   AF
10. W

    HC
11. W

    CCU
12. W

    NAVY

What moved it, 2023

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−0.47
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.21

Game by game

• ULML 13-17 at ULM75% → 10%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −4
• DSUW 57-0 vs DSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• UTSAW 37-29 at UTSA26% → 97%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +58, Clock +4
• SYRL 16-29 at SYR16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• BCL 24-27 vs BC54% → 4%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• TROYL 0-19 vs TROY31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• LSUL 0-62 at LSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• MASSL 14-21 vs MASS76% → 8%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• AFW 23-3 at AF13% → 99%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +87: Scoreboard +66, Clock +3
• HCW 17-14 vs HC78% → 97%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• CCUW 28-21 vs CCU37% → 96%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• NAVYW 17-11 vs NAVY52% → 9%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts +4

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.