Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0418th
  Defense−0.0290th
• 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.
  Offense39.0%12th
  Defense40.1%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2982nd
  Defense+1.2052nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0119th
  Defense+0.0367th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1647th
  Defense−0.0491st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%22nd
  Defense46.1%61st
• 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%13th
  Defense27.7%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.509th
  Defense2.8653rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%15th
  Defense17.3%27th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.7%76th
  Defense17.3%68th

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, 2018

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. W
   HC
3. W
   WAKE
4. L
   PUR
5. W
   TEM
6. L
   NCSU
7. W
   LOU
8. W
   MIA
9. W
   VT
10. L
    CLEM
11. L
    FSU
12. L
    SYR

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

Players, 2018

1. Anthony BrownQB289 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 71st of 225 QBs
   1.21WAR0.74 to 1.62
2. AJ DillonRB209 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 10th of 351 RBs
   0.82WAR0.65 to 0.96
3. Ben GlinesRB64 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 215th of 351 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
4. Grant CarlsonP54 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 18th of 91 punters
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
5. Kobay WhiteWR46 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 210th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Tommy SweeneyTE39 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 21st of 204 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.14
7. Colton LichtenbergPK7 plays · +0.303 pts/play · 103rd of 112 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Jeff SmithRB40 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 287th of 351 RBs
   0.03WAR−0.03 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53353369th of 130Roster talent: 533, 69th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16316370th of 130Recruiting: 163, 70th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%24th of 129Returning production: 81%, 24th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.4+2.463rd of 130SP+ rating: +2.4, 63rd of 130 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.11 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 FSUQ4 9:38 4th & 5 at FSU 38, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. at FSUQ4 2:52 4th & 6 at FSU 45, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at VTQ4 2:31 4th & 2 at VT 11, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs CLEMQ2 14:53 4th & 1 at BC 19, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs LOUQ2 0:04 4th & 3 at LOU 21, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs SYRQ3 2:12 4th & 7 at SYR 16, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs TEMQ3 15:00 4th & 7 at TEM 49, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs CLEMQ4 11:39 4th & 4 at BC 18, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

63rd 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

   MASS
2. W

   HC
3. W

   WAKE
4. L

   PUR
5. W

   TEM
6. L

   NCSU
7. W

   LOU
8. W

   MIA
9. W

   VT
10. L

    CLEM
11. L

    FSU
12. L

    SYR

What moved it, 2018

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−0.03
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.43

Game by game

• MASSW 55-21 vs MASS90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• HCW 62-14 vs HC75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −2
• WAKEW 41-34 at WAKE70% → 96%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• PURL 13-30 at PUR66% → 1%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −50
• TEMW 45-35 vs TEM83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• NCSUL 23-28 at NCSU30% → 4%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• LOUW 38-20 vs LOU81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• MIAW 27-14 vs MIA35% → 99%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +2
• VTW 31-21 at VT52% → 96%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• CLEML 7-27 vs CLEM10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• FSUL 21-22 at FSU53% → 19%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• SYRL 21-42 vs SYR64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −61, Clock −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.