Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0215th
  Defense+0.0952nd
• 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.
  Offense36.1%6th
  Defense41.4%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3892nd
  Defense+1.2452nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.122nd
  Defense+0.0845th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2348th
  Defense+0.2145th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.1%4th
  Defense47.8%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.8%24th
  Defense29.1%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.211st
  Defense2.9468th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense29.7%1st
  Defense18.0%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.6%2nd
  Defense18.4%80th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   RUTG
2. L
   VT
3. W
   ME
4. L
   FSU
5. W
   LOU
6. L
   CLEM
7. L
   WAKE
8. L
   CONN
9. L
   DUKE
10. W
    NCSU
11. L
    ND
12. L
    SYR

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

Players, 2022

1. Phil JurkovecQB213 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 84th of 234 QBs
   0.93WAR0.47 to 1.38
2. Emmett MoreheadQB172 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 119th of 234 QBs
   0.51WAR0.13 to 0.88
3. Zay FlowersWR81 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 8th of 455 WRs
   0.33WAR0.20 to 0.48
4. Patrick Garwo IIIRB112 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 142nd of 384 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.29
5. Danny LongmanPK43 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 12th of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Jaelen GillWR26 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 212th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. George TakacsTE21 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 90th of 214 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. Connor LyttonPK13 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 83rd of 110 kickers
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66566542nd of 129Roster talent: 665, 42nd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818852nd of 129Recruiting: 188, 52nd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%56th of 128Returning production: 64%, 56th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.9−14.9111th of 129SP+ rating: −14.9, 111th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.12 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 LOUQ3 3:07 4th & 1 at BC 34, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at NCSUQ4 4:41 4th & 7 at BC 30, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs RUTGQ4 7:45 4th & 3 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at CONNQ2 10:01 4th & 2 at CONN 2, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at CONNQ4 12:14 4th & 3 at BC 17, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs SYRQ2 9:02 4th & 21 at SYR 35, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at NCSUQ4 8:34 4th & 4 at BC 32, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs MEQ4 7:22 4th & 6 at BC 13, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

107th of 131 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

   RUTG
2. L

   VT
3. W

   ME
4. L

   FSU
5. W

   LOU
6. L

   CLEM
7. L

   WAKE
8. L

   CONN
9. L

   DUKE
10. W

    NCSU
11. L

    ND
12. L

    SYR

What moved it, 2022

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−2.07
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• RUTGL 21-22 vs RUTG73% → 15%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −45, Clock −4
• VTL 10-27 at VT46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −1
• MEW 38-17 vs ME97% → 4%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −93: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• FSUL 14-44 at FSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• LOUW 34-33 vs LOU19% → 94%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• CLEML 3-31 vs CLEM9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• WAKEL 15-43 at WAKE11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• CONNL 3-13 at CONN75% → 7%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• DUKEL 31-38 vs DUKE26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• NCSUW 21-20 at NCSU14% → 94%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• NDL 0-44 at ND10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• SYRL 23-32 vs SYR26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2

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.