Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1238th
  Defense+0.1353rd
• 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.
  Offense41.1%34th
  Defense42.2%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2643rd
  Defense+1.1978th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0832nd
  Defense+0.0957th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2147th
  Defense+0.1866th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%22nd
  Defense47.2%51st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%53rd
  Defense30.3%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7311th
  Defense3.1436th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.8%4th
  Defense17.4%54th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%23rd
  Defense14.8%24th

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, 2021

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
   COLG
2. W
   MASS
3. W
   TEM
4. W
   MIZ
5. L
   CLEM
6. L
   NCSU
7. L
   LOU
8. L
   SYR
9. W
   VT
10. W
    GT
11. L
    FSU
12. L
    WAKE

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

Players, 2021

1. Patrick Garwo IIIRB165 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 42nd of 387 RBs
   0.60WAR0.45 to 0.76
2. Dennis GroselQB180 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 129th of 219 QBs
   0.51WAR0.23 to 0.83
3. Phil JurkovecQB104 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 136th of 219 QBs
   0.46WAR0.23 to 0.69
4. Alec SinkfieldRB57 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 260th of 387 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
5. Travis LevyRB46 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 291st of 387 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Zay FlowersWR44 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 264th of 474 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
7. Jaelen GillWR21 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 291st of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
8. Grant Carlson?41 plays · +0.090 pts/play
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.16

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63663650th of 130Roster talent: 636, 50th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18018056th of 130Recruiting: 180, 56th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%34th of 128Returning production: 88%, 34th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.9+0.975th of 130SP+ rating: +0.9, 75th 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, 2021

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 0.06 of the 0.09 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 FSUQ4 1:42 4th & 9 at FSU 37, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.5 pts
2. at SYRQ2 3:01 4th & 7 at SYR 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs VTQ4 7:25 4th & 3 at VT 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs VTQ2 6:48 4th & 3 at VT 16, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs FSUQ1 6:40 4th & 1 at BC 10, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs NCSUQ2 6:05 4th & 3 at NCSU 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at LOUQ4 6:10 4th & 6 at LOU 6, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at CLEMQ3 8:18 4th & 12 at CLEM 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

88th 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

   COLG
2. W

   MASS
3. W

   TEM
4. W

   MIZ
5. L

   CLEM
6. L

   NCSU
7. L

   LOU
8. L

   SYR
9. W

   VT
10. W

    GT
11. L

    FSU
12. L

    WAKE

What moved it, 2021

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−0.96
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.14

Game by game

• COLGW 51-0 vs COLG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MASSW 45-28 at MASS100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TEMW 28-3 at TEM88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18
• MIZW 41-34 vs MIZ55% → 80%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts −22
• CLEML 13-19 at CLEM19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• NCSUL 7-33 vs NCSU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
• LOUL 14-28 at LOU40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• SYRL 6-21 at SYR34% → 2%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• VTW 17-3 vs VT52% → 99%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2
• GTW 41-30 at GT55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• FSUL 23-26 vs FSU60% → 8%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• WAKEL 10-41 vs WAKE35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −41, Clock −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.