Boston College

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0831st
  Defense+0.0671st
• 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.
  Offense40.9%31st
  Defense42.1%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3069th
  Defense+1.1683rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0312th
  Defense−0.0281st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2262nd
  Defense+0.1357th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%19th
  Defense48.4%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%50th
  Defense28.5%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8728th
  Defense2.8171st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%52nd
  Defense18.1%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.8%70th
  Defense17.0%59th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   FSU
2. W
   DUQ
3. L
   MIZ
4. W
   MSU
5. W
   WKU
6. L
   UVA
7. L
   VT
8. L
   LOU
9. W
   SYR
10. L
    SMU
11. W
    UNC
12. W
    PITT
13. L
    NEB

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

Players, 2024

1. Tommy CastellanosQB222 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 88th of 232 QBs
   1.04WAR0.66 to 1.43
2. Grayson JamesQB196 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 118th of 232 QBs
   0.61WAR0.22 to 0.98
3. Kye RobichauxRB167 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 70th of 373 RBs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.48
4. Treshaun WardRB82 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 106th of 373 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.32
5. Jeremiah FranklinTE25 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 30th of 221 TEs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.14
6. Kamari MoralesTE22 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 44th of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
7. Jaedn SkeeteWR17 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 224th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Lewis BondWR63 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 233rd of 452 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.11 to 0.23

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66866858th of 131Roster talent: 668, 58th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18618657th of 131Recruiting: 186, 57th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%5th of 130Returning production: 88%, 5th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.2+1.268th of 131SP+ rating: +1.2, 68th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.15 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 0:22 4th & 1 at BC 30, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs PITTQ2 1:38 4th & 1 at BC 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at VTQ4 8:38 4th & 13 at VT 19, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
4. vs LOUQ4 5:25 4th & 5 at BC 30, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs MSUQ3 8:03 4th & 10 at MSU 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
6. at FSUQ3 7:17 4th & 3 at BC 47, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at SMUQ4 1:11 4th & 19 at BC 22, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at MIZQ2 0:47 4th & 10 at MIZ 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

31st of 134 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

   FSU
2. W

   DUQ
3. L

   MIZ
4. W

   MSU
5. W

   WKU
6. L

   UVA
7. L

   VT
8. L

   LOU
9. W

   SYR
10. L

    SMU
11. W

    UNC
12. W

    PITT
13. L

    NEB

What moved it, 2024

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+0.66
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.11
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.49

Game by game

• FSUW 28-13 at FSU15% → 99%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +64, Clock +3
• DUQW 56-0 vs DUQ98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MIZL 21-27 at MIZ13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18
• MSUW 23-19 vs MSU65% → 90%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −6
• WKUW 21-20 vs WKU74% → 86%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts −3
• UVAL 14-24 at UVA46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1
• VTL 21-42 at VT27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• LOUL 27-31 vs LOU37% → 15%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Clock −3
• SYRW 37-31 vs SYR61% → 96%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• SMUL 28-38 at SMU11% → 3%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• UNCW 41-21 vs UNC44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +52, Clock −1
• PITTW 34-23 vs PITT60% → 98%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• NEBL 15-20 at NEB38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −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.