Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2287th
  Defense+0.2114th
• 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.
  Offense45.4%67th
  Defense46.7%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1845th
  Defense+1.2624th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1681st
  Defense+0.0360th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3792nd
  Defense+0.432nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%67th
  Defense48.7%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.4%73rd
  Defense42.4%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1880th
  Defense2.7467th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%88th
  Defense25.0%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%78th
  Defense19.4%42nd

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, 2019

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
   VT
2. W
   RICH
3. L
   KU
4. W
   RUTG
5. L
   WAKE
6. L
   LOU
7. W
   NCSU
8. L
   CLEM
9. W
   SYR
10. L
    FSU
11. L
    ND
12. W
    PITT
13. L
    CIN

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

Players, 2019

1. AJ DillonRB264 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 13th of 349 RBs
   0.82WAR0.60 to 1.00
2. Anthony BrownQB146 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 101st of 228 QBs
   0.71WAR0.46 to 0.94
3. Dennis GroselQB156 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 103rd of 228 QBs
   0.69WAR0.41 to 0.98
4. David BaileyRB127 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 101st of 349 RBs
   0.39WAR0.29 to 0.51
5. Aaron BoumerhiPK17 plays · +0.323 pts/play · 72nd of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
6. Kobay WhiteWR42 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 216th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Hunter LongTE29 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 15th of 207 TEs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Grant CarlsonP43 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 37th of 100 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56556565th of 130Roster talent: 565, 65th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16516571st of 130Recruiting: 165, 71st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%52nd of 130Returning production: 67%, 52nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.7−5.792nd of 130SP+ rating: −5.7, 92nd 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.08 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 PITTQ4 9:41 4th & 3 at PITT 5, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs KUQ3 8:37 4th & 3 at BC 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs FSUQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at FSU 28, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs WAKEQ4 13:11 4th & 8 at WAKE 31, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at RUTGQ2 8:16 4th & 2 at BC 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs KUQ4 5:50 4th & 8 at BC 6, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs WAKEQ1 8:47 4th & 1 at BC 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs WAKEQ3 4:47 4th & 6 at midfield, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

60th 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

   VT
2. W

   RICH
3. L

   KU
4. W

   RUTG
5. L

   WAKE
6. L

   LOU
7. W

   NCSU
8. L

   CLEM
9. W

   SYR
10. L

    FSU
11. L

    ND
12. W

    PITT
13. L

    CIN

What moved it, 2019

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+0.10
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• VTW 35-28 vs VT37% → 95%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• RICHW 45-13 vs RICH98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• KUL 24-48 vs KU91% → 0%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −91: Scoreboard −68, Clock −2
• RUTGW 30-16 at RUTG73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• WAKEL 24-27 vs WAKE37% → 13%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −36, Clock −3
• LOUL 39-41 at LOU38% → 5%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• NCSUW 45-24 vs NCSU43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +50, Possession & field position −1
• CLEML 7-59 at CLEM2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• SYRW 58-27 at SYR44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +58
• FSUL 31-38 vs FSU51% → 4%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• NDL 7-40 at ND8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• PITTW 26-19 at PITT29% → 90%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +52, Clock +1
• CINL 6-38 at CIN30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position −1

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.