Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0943rd
  Defense+0.0372nd
• 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.
  Offense43.5%50th
  Defense43.2%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0910th
  Defense+1.2141st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0335th
  Defense+0.0932nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1753rd
  Defense−0.0187th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%64th
  Defense47.6%46th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.2%50th
  Defense33.3%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9666th
  Defense2.9239th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%49th
  Defense19.3%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.9%12th
  Defense1.8%40th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Buffalo 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
   UALB
2. L
   PSU
3. W
   FAU
4. L
   NEV
5. L
   BGSU
6. L
   CMU
7. W
   OHIO
8. W
   M-OH
9. W
   KENT
10. L
    NIU
11. L
    AKR
12. L
    MASS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2015

1. Joe LicataQB355 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 56th of 205 QBs
   1.53WAR0.94 to 2.09
2. Anthone TaylorRB152 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 74th of 333 RBs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.41
3. Jordan JohnsonRB139 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 101st of 333 RBs
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.36
4. Ron WilloughbyWR76 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 48th of 411 WRs
   0.24WAR0.14 to 0.35
5. Marcus McGillWR52 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 80th of 411 WRs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.27
6. Adam MitchesonPK18 plays · +0.314 pts/play · 67th of 115 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. Matt WeiserTE57 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 5th of 189 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.08 to 0.15
8. Jacob MartinezWR10 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 362nd of 411 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04

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 Buffalo'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  316316118th of 128Roster talent: 316, 118th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  106106111th of 128Recruiting: 106, 111th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  95%95%7th of 127Returning production: 95%, 7th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.3−10.3103rd of 128SP+ rating: −10.3, 103rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Buffalo'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 0.08 of the 0.14 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 FAUQ3 6:46 4th & 1 at BUF 48, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. at FAUQ3 8:47 4th & 2 at FAU 2, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at FAUQ2 13:31 4th & 1 at BUF 49, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs NEVQ3 6:56 4th & 3 at NEV 26, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at PSUQ2 7:34 4th & 1 at BUF 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs BGSUQ2 11:04 4th & 1 at BUF 22, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs BGSUQ2 4:18 4th & 8 at BGSU 20, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs OHIOQ4 13:06 4th & 3 at OHIO 18, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

108th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Buffalo's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   UALB
2. L

   PSU
3. W

   FAU
4. L

   NEV
5. L

   BGSU
6. L

   CMU
7. W

   OHIO
8. W

   M-OH
9. W

   KENT
10. L

    NIU
11. L

    AKR
12. L

    MASS

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Buffalo'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−1.18
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• UALBW 51-14 vs UALB73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28
• PSUL 14-27 at PSU13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• FAUW 33-15 at FAU46% → 99%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• NEVL 21-24 vs NEV64% → 12%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −47, Clock −4
• BGSUL 22-28 vs BGSU32% → 9%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −2
• CMUL 14-51 at CMU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34
• OHIOW 41-17 vs OHIO45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +49
• M-OHW 29-24 at M-OH77% → 89%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• NIUL 30-41 vs NIU38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• AKRL 21-42 at AKR48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −1
• MASSL 26-31 vs MASS66% → 3%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Buffalo's side.

Closest call

BALL 48-51 BUF (2024) - Buffalo dropped to a 6.3% win probability before pulling it out.