Army

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1050th
  Defense+0.1046th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%49th
  Defense44.4%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.134th
  Defense+1.1491st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0850th
  Defense+0.0844th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3280th
  Defense+0.1943rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%41st
  Defense50.5%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%41st
  Defense29.6%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0665th
  Defense3.1321st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.0%96th
  Defense16.1%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense8.3%99th
  Defense12.7%10th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   TAR
2. W
   KSU
3. L
   UNT
4. L
   ECU
5. W
   UAB
6. W
   CLT
7. L
   TULN
8. W
   AF
9. W
   TEM
10. L
    TLSA
11. W
    UTSA
12. L
    NAVY
13. W
    CONN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Army.

Players, 2025

1. Cale HellumsQB348 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 60th of 231 QBs
   1.27WAR0.51 to 1.98
2. Noah ShortWR121 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 149th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.25
3. Hayden ReedRB46 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 251st of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
4. James WagensellerP28 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 49th of 100 punters
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.07
5. Samari HowardWR13 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 410th of 451 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
6. Dewayne ColemanQB72 plays · −0.002 pts/play · 228th of 231 QBs
   0.00WAR−0.21 to 0.20

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  2424134th of 134Roster talent: 24, 134th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  6161130th of 134Recruiting: 61, 130th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  25%25%80th of 132Returning production: 25%, 80th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.8+0.873rd of 134SP+ rating: +0.8, 73rd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.03 of the 0.06 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 TARQ4 1:49 4th & 6 at ARMY 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at NAVYQ2 3:45 4th & 3 at NAVY 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at AFQ2 4:57 4th & 6 at AF 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at UABQ2 0:07 4th & 1 at UAB 32, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs UNTQ4 2:56 4th & 3 at ARMY 32, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at ECUQ4 10:36 4th & 12 at ECU 44, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs UNTQ4 7:42 4th & 3 at ARMY 32, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ECUQ4 1:15 4th & 9 at ECU 17, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

50th of 136 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

   TAR
2. W

   KSU
3. L

   UNT
4. L

   ECU
5. W

   UAB
6. W

   CLT
7. L

   TULN
8. W

   AF
9. W

   TEM
10. L

    TLSA
11. W

    UTSA
12. L

    NAVY
13. W

    CONN

What moved it, 2025

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+1.39
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.34

Game by game

• TARL 27-30 vs TAR82% → 53%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts +4
• KSUW 24-21 at KSU9% → 92%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• UNTL 38-45 vs UNT39% → 49%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +10: Scoreboard −12, Clock −3
• ECUL 6-28 at ECU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +1
• UABW 31-13 at UAB63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• CLTW 24-7 vs CLT88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts −1
• TULNL 17-24 at TULN22% → 12%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position +2
• AFW 20-17 at AF49% → 93%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• TEMW 14-13 vs TEM65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• TLSAL 25-26 vs TLSA71% → 17%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• UTSAW 27-24 at UTSA20% → 95%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• NAVYL 16-17 at NAVY27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• CONNW 41-16 vs CONN60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +38, 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.