Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.043rd
  Defense−0.0291st
• 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.
  Offense35.1%1st
  Defense34.1%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1120th
  Defense+1.402nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.066th
  Defense−0.1298th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0218th
  Defense+0.0680th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.4%2nd
  Defense40.8%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.7%1st
  Defense23.0%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.466th
  Defense2.1898th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.7%10th
  Defense26.0%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%20th
  Defense24.0%99th

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, 2016

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. L
   GT
2. W
   MASS
3. L
   VT
4. W
   WAG
5. W
   BUF
6. L
   CLEM
7. L
   SYR
8. W
   NCSU
9. L
   LOU
10. L
    FSU
11. W
    CONN
12. W
    WAKE
13. W
    MD

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

Players, 2016

1. Patrick TowlesQB309 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 89th of 218 QBs
   0.93WAR0.39 to 1.41
2. Mike KnollPK78 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 7th of 116 kickers
   0.24WAR0.10 to 0.39
3. Davon JonesRB63 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 206th of 347 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
4. Jeff SmithRB67 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 207th of 347 RBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.23
5. Michael WalkerWR45 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 151st of 417 WRs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
6. Myles WillisRB37 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 222nd of 347 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
7. Jonathan HillimanRB128 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 227th of 347 RBs
   0.13WAR−0.03 to 0.29
8. Charlie CallinanWR28 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 297th of 417 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53353360th of 128Roster talent: 533, 60th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16416464th of 128Recruiting: 164, 64th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  92%92%14th of 128Returning production: 92%, 14th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.6−1.673rd of 128SP+ rating: −1.6, 73rd 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, 2016

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 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.28 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 GTQ3 2:53 4th & 1 at GT 18, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.8 pts
2. vs SYRQ4 1:55 4th & 14 at SYR 18, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal3.0 pts
3. vs MDQ3 7:01 4th & 1 at BC 40, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.7 pts
4. at MASSQ3 11:02 4th & 1 at BC 10, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.5 pts
5. at MASSQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at BC 40, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
6. vs GTQ2 3:34 4th & 4 at GT 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
7. at MASSQ4 14:10 4th & 6 at MASS 35, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
8. at MASSQ2 6:16 4th & 2 at MASS 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

38th 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. L

   GT
2. W

   MASS
3. L

   VT
4. W

   WAG
5. W

   BUF
6. L

   CLEM
7. L

   SYR
8. W

   NCSU
9. L

   LOU
10. L

    FSU
11. W

    CONN
12. W

    WAKE
13. W

    MD

What moved it, 2016

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+0.32
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.31

Game by game

• GTL 14-17 vs GT42% → 5%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• MASSW 26-7 at MASS90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• VTL 0-49 at VT31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• WAGW 42-10 vs WAG98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• BUFW 35-3 vs BUF93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• CLEML 10-56 vs CLEM11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16
• SYRL 20-28 vs SYR60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• NCSUW 21-14 at NCSU18% → 87%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• LOUL 7-52 vs LOU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• FSUL 7-45 at FSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• CONNW 30-0 vs CONN70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31
• WAKEW 17-14 at WAKE44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• MDW 36-30 vs MD53% → 96%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3

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.