Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.113rd
  Defense−0.1399th
• 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.
  Offense32.6%1st
  Defense31.3%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1839th
  Defense+1.1664th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.086th
  Defense−0.2599th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.162nd
  Defense0.0086th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense35.0%1st
  Defense36.8%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%20th
  Defense23.7%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.416th
  Defense1.9199th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.4%2nd
  Defense31.2%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%40th
  Defense1.6%25th

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, 2015

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
   ME
2. W
   HOW
3. L
   FSU
4. W
   NIU
5. L
   DUKE
6. L
   WAKE
7. L
   CLEM
8. L
   LOU
9. L
   VT
10. L
    NCSU
11. L
    ND
12. L
    SYR

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

Players, 2015

1. Jeff SmithRB56 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 128th of 333 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.25
2. Alex HowellPK80 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 11th of 115 kickers
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.29
3. Tyler RouseRB95 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 141st of 333 RBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.25
4. Myles WillisRB58 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 185th of 333 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
5. Darius WadeQB21 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 193rd of 205 QBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
6. Marcus OutlowRB40 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 235th of 333 RBs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
7. Jonathan HillimanRB32 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 238th of 333 RBs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Charlie CallinanWR15 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 355th of 411 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 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 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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53553558th of 128Roster talent: 535, 58th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17317354th of 128Recruiting: 173, 54th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  18%18%126th of 127Returning production: 18%, 126th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.7+4.757th of 128SP+ rating: +4.7, 57th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.22 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 NIUQ4 2:26 4th & 1 at BC 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.1 pts
2. vs WAKEQ4 8:14 4th & 4 at BC 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. at CLEMQ3 11:54 4th & 1 at BC 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs FSUQ3 11:49 4th & 2 at BC 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at LOUQ4 14:11 4th & 2 at BC 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at SYRQ4 12:13 4th & 7 at SYR 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs NCSUQ3 3:07 4th & 9 at NCSU 22, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at DUKEQ2 6:31 4th & 12 at DUKE 25, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

123rd 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

   ME
2. W

   HOW
3. L

   FSU
4. W

   NIU
5. L

   DUKE
6. L

   WAKE
7. L

   CLEM
8. L

   LOU
9. L

   VT
10. L

    NCSU
11. L

    ND
12. L

    SYR

What moved it, 2015

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−1.92
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.38

Game by game

• MEW 24-3 vs ME74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29
• HOWW 76-0 vs HOW99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• FSUL 0-14 vs FSU20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −29, Clock −2
• NIUW 17-14 vs NIU60% → 88%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• DUKEL 7-9 at DUKE30% → 22%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −3
• WAKEL 0-3 vs WAKE71% → 43%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position +6
• CLEML 17-34 at CLEM10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• LOUL 14-17 at LOU24% → 9%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• VTL 10-26 vs VT38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• NCSUL 8-24 vs NCSU38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• NDL 16-19 at ND11% → 4%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• SYRL 17-20 at SYR58% → 4%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2

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.