Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1861st
  Defense+0.1262nd
• 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.
  Offense41.6%36th
  Defense39.7%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2983rd
  Defense+1.2143rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2083rd
  Defense−0.0494th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1837th
  Defense+0.2629th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%30th
  Defense44.8%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.8%43rd
  Defense30.4%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9046th
  Defense2.1799th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%35th
  Defense28.3%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense2.2%63rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Boston College 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
   MASS
2. L
   PITT
3. W
   USC
4. W
   ME
5. L
   CSU
6. W
   NCSU
7. L
   CLEM
8. W
   WAKE
9. W
   VT
10. L
    LOU
11. L
    FSU
12. W
    SYR
13. L
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Boston College.

Players, 2014

1. Tyler MurphyQB353 plays · +0.360 pts/play · 13th of 199 QBs
   2.38WAR1.72 to 3.14
2. Jonathan HillimanRB173 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 62nd of 350 RBs
   0.31WAR0.12 to 0.47
3. Myles WillisRB79 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 147th of 350 RBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
4. Alex HowellPK58 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 26th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
5. Marcus OutlowRB55 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 235th of 350 RBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
6. Tyler RouseRB37 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 241st of 350 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. Charlie CallinanWR20 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 363rd of 469 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
8. Sherman Alston Jr.WR30 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 369th of 469 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08

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 Boston College'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, 2014

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 Boston College's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.30 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 PSUQ4 2:10 4th & 2 at PSU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.2 pts
2. vs CLEMQ4 3:25 4th & 15 at CLEM 31, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.6 pts
3. at VTQ3 2:42 4th & 1 at BC 46, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
4. at VTQ3 5:36 4th & 2 at VT 2, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
5. vs CSUQ4 6:55 4th & 3 at BC 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs PITTQ2 1:15 4th & 17 at PITT 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
7. at WAKEQ3 6:59 4th & 1 at BC 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs USCQ3 2:43 4th & 3 at BC 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

36th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Boston College's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MASS
2. L

   PITT
3. W

   USC
4. W

   ME
5. L

   CSU
6. W

   NCSU
7. L

   CLEM
8. W

   WAKE
9. W

   VT
10. L

    LOU
11. L

    FSU
12. W

    SYR
13. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Boston College'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+0.44
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.55

Game by game

• MASSW 30-7 at MASS79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• PITTL 20-30 vs PITT49% → 4%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• USCW 37-31 vs USC7% → 99%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +92: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts +1
• MEW 40-10 vs ME95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• CSUL 21-24 vs CSU57% → 24%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• NCSUW 30-14 at NCSU39% → 98%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +57, Clock +1
• CLEML 13-17 vs CLEM27% → 6%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• WAKEW 23-17 at WAKE79% → 95%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• VTW 33-31 at VT30% → 94%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• LOUL 19-38 vs LOU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• FSUL 17-20 at FSU7% → 11%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +5: Scoreboard −11, Possession & field position −1
• SYRW 28-7 vs SYR70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −1
• PSUL 30-31 at PSU50% → 17%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +23

Points of win probability, from Boston College's side.

Closest call

ME 17-38 BC (2022) - Boston College dropped to a 4.2% win probability before pulling it out.