Delaware

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0725th
  Defense+0.1332nd
• 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.
  Offense40.0%27th
  Defense42.8%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2759th
  Defense+1.2157th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0415th
  Defense+0.1036th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2451st
  Defense+0.2728th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%45th
  Defense50.3%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.1%12th
  Defense26.1%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.516th
  Defense2.9741st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.1%8th
  Defense16.5%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.2%1st
  Defense17.8%74th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Delaware 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
   MRMK
2. L
   VAN
3. W
   CCU
4. L
   UVA
5. L
   LIB
6. L
   MTSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Delaware.

Players, 2026

1. Nick MinicucciQB67 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 118th of 192 QBs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.23
2. Jo SilverRB42 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 146th of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
3. Sean WilsonWR19 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 103rd of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
4. EJ Archield Jr.QB23 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 172nd of 192 QBs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06
5. Braden StreeterQB15 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 183rd of 192 QBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
6. Kaderris RobertsRB18 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 236th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Donovan LewisWR11 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Viron Ellison Jr.RB13 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 243rd of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.02 to 0.03

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 Delaware'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  483483134th of 138Roster talent: 483, 134th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  6464137th of 138Recruiting: 64, 137th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%9th of 136Returning production: 85%, 9th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.1−13.1118th of 138SP+ rating so far: −13.1, 118th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Delaware's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.03 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 CCUQ3 3:47 4th & 8 at CCU 38, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs CCUQ4 14:50 4th & 6 at CCU 45, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at VANQ4 1:54 4th & 15 at DEL 16, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at VANQ2 0:36 4th & 6 at VAN 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs LIBQ2 3:40 4th & 4 at DEL 46, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs LIBQ3 1:59 4th & 3 at DEL 32, down 23Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs LIBQ2 0:06 4th & 2 at DEL 45, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at UVAQ2 1:17 4th & 4 at DEL 41, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

118th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Delaware's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MRMK
2. L

   VAN
3. W

   CCU
4. L

   UVA
5. L

   LIB
6. L

   MTSU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Delaware'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−0.85
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.02

Game by game

• MRMKW 42-7 vs MRMK98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• VANL 26-35 at VAN11% → 4%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• CCUW 22-14 vs CCU72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• UVAL 3-42 at UVA15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −17
• LIBL 14-30 vs LIB38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• MTSUL 30-33 at MTSU60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3

Points of win probability, from Delaware's side.

Closest call

LT 24-25 DEL (2025) - Delaware dropped to a 2.9% win probability before pulling it out.