Army

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2693rd
  Defense+0.0955th
• 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.
  Offense50.5%98th
  Defense44.5%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.082nd
  Defense+1.2938th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2696th
  Defense+0.1719th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3390th
  Defense+0.0872nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.4%98th
  Defense50.7%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%48th
  Defense30.8%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5496th
  Defense3.2719th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense9.1%99th
  Defense15.2%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense8.3%99th
  Defense15.0%35th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   LEH
2. W
   FAU
3. W
   RICE
4. W
   TEM
5. W
   TLSA
6. W
   UAB
7. W
   ECU
8. W
   AF
9. W
   UNT
10. L
    ND
11. W
    UTSA
12. W
    TULN
13. L
    NAVY
14. W
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Army.

Players, 2024

1. Bryson DailyQB257 plays · +0.450 pts/play · 20th of 232 QBs
   2.16WAR1.67 to 2.65
2. Kanye UdohRB117 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 96th of 373 RBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.38
3. Noah ShortWR77 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 149th of 452 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
4. Hayden ReedRB30 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 275th of 373 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.08
5. Casey ReynoldsWR17 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 263rd of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09
6. Tyrell RobinsonRB6 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 325th of 373 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
7. Samari HowardWR11 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 370th of 452 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2024

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.04 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 FAUQ4 13:57 4th & 12 at FAU 23, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
2. at TEMQ2 0:00 4th & 10 at ARMY 47, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at UNTQ2 0:21 4th & 1 at UNT 32, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
4. at FAUQ3 11:00 4th & 4 at FAU 18, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs ECUQ2 3:43 4th & 2 at ARMY 42, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs ECUQ2 3:43 4th & 2 at ARMY 42, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at TLSAQ1 0:07 4th & 4 at TLSA 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs AFQ1 2:27 4th & 4 at AF 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

11th of 134 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

   LEH
2. W

   FAU
3. W

   RICE
4. W

   TEM
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   UAB
7. W

   ECU
8. W

   AF
9. W

   UNT
10. L

    ND
11. W

    UTSA
12. W

    TULN
13. L

    NAVY
14. W

    LT

What moved it, 2024

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+2.80
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.46

Game by game

• LEHW 42-7 vs LEH71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• FAUW 24-7 at FAU47% → 99%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• RICEW 37-14 vs RICE68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Clock +1
• TEMW 42-14 at TEM83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• TLSAW 49-7 at TLSA76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29
• UABW 44-10 vs UAB94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• ECUW 45-28 vs ECU87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• AFW 20-3 vs AF91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14
• UNTW 14-3 at UNT67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• NDL 14-49 at ND14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• UTSAW 29-24 vs UTSA66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +3
• TULNW 35-14 vs TULN35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +57, Clock −2
• NAVYL 13-31 vs NAVY69% → 1%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• LTW 27-6 vs LT83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +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.