Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0117th
  Defense+0.0366th
• 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.
  Offense39.5%18th
  Defense39.2%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1327th
  Defense+1.2242nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0442nd
  Defense+0.1031st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0116th
  Defense−0.0492nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%32nd
  Defense43.4%77th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.5%12th
  Defense30.8%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7937th
  Defense2.9440th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%64th
  Defense17.8%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%71st
  Defense17.2%60th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   NIU
2. L
   WAKE
3. L
   ND
4. L
   CLEM
5. W
   CMU
6. L
   VT
7. W
   LOU
8. W
   UVA
9. W
   FSU
10. L
    NCSU
11. W
    CONN
12. W
    SYR
13. L
    IOWA

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

Players, 2017

1. AJ DillonRB255 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 4th of 352 RBs
   0.94WAR0.70 to 1.17
2. Anthony BrownQB261 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 89th of 226 QBs
   0.87WAR0.36 to 1.29
3. Darius WadeQB103 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 147th of 226 QBs
   0.33WAR0.15 to 0.53
4. Kobay WhiteWR51 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 179th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
5. Jonathan HillimanRB148 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 249th of 352 RBs
   0.09WAR−0.03 to 0.22
6. Colton LichtenbergPK18 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 82nd of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
7. Michael WalkerWR26 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 319th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
8. Thadd SmithWR32 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 340th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53553565th of 130Roster talent: 535, 65th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16416467th of 130Recruiting: 164, 67th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%84th of 128Returning production: 52%, 84th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.6+4.653rd of 128SP+ rating: +4.6, 53rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.27 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 NCSUQ4 4:15 4th & 12 at NCSU 22, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−10.7 pts
2. at LOUQ4 5:03 4th & 4 at LOU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. at CLEMQ3 0:10 4th & 1 at BC 33, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs IOWAQ2 1:29 4th & 1 at IOWA 12, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at SYRQ3 8:03 4th & 2 at SYR 45, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs VTQ4 2:17 4th & 7 at VT 22, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs NCSUQ3 3:24 4th & 3 at BC 27, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs FSUQ2 4:12 4th & 9 at FSU 30, up 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

12th of 130 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

   NIU
2. L

   WAKE
3. L

   ND
4. L

   CLEM
5. W

   CMU
6. L

   VT
7. W

   LOU
8. W

   UVA
9. W

   FSU
10. L

    NCSU
11. W

    CONN
12. W

    SYR
13. L

    IOWA

What moved it, 2017

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+1.33
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.71

Game by game

• NIUW 23-20 at NIU62% → 94%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• WAKEL 10-34 vs WAKE44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −49, Clock −1
• NDL 20-49 vs ND16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21
• CLEML 7-34 at CLEM2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• CMUW 28-8 vs CMU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Possession & field position +1
• VTL 10-23 vs VT15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• LOUW 45-42 at LOU8% → 96%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +87: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• UVAW 41-10 at UVA30% → 100%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +66, Clock +1
• FSUW 35-3 vs FSU28% → 100%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +60, Timeouts −1
• NCSUL 14-17 vs NCSU38% → 12%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• CONNW 39-16 at CONN91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• SYRW 42-14 at SYR57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• IOWAL 20-27 vs IOWA45% → 7%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position −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.