Delaware

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1359th
  Defense+0.1815th
• 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.
  Offense43.8%63rd
  Defense42.1%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2558th
  Defense+1.424th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0119th
  Defense+0.1613th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2364th
  Defense+0.2527th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.9%73rd
  Defense45.7%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.8%39th
  Defense34.5%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9249th
  Defense2.8752nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%33rd
  Defense21.3%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%51st
  Defense15.8%52nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   DSU
2. L
   COLO
3. W
   CONN
4. W
   FIU
5. L
   WKU
6. L
   JXST
7. W
   MTSU
8. L
   LIB
9. W
   LT
10. L
    SHSU
11. L
    WAKE
12. W
    UTEP
13. W
    UL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Delaware.

Players, 2025

1. Nick MinicucciQB502 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 11th of 231 QBs
   2.08WAR1.18 to 2.98
2. Kyre DuplessisWR80 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 27th of 451 WRs
   0.29WAR0.13 to 0.43
3. Sean WilsonWR93 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 28th of 451 WRs
   0.28WAR0.10 to 0.45
4. Jo SilverRB142 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 73rd of 365 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.34
5. Nate ReedPK20 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 27th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Viron Ellison Jr.RB45 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 253rd of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
7. Ja'Carree KellyWR30 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 287th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Elijah SessomsTE23 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 109th of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  243243133rd of 134Roster talent: 243, 133rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2222133rd of 134Recruiting: 22, 133rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.9−10.9107th of 134SP+ rating: −10.9, 107th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.21 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 LTQ4 0:12 4th & 4 at LT 34, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−7.6 pts
2. vs UTEPQ3 8:59 4th & 1 at DEL 26, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs LTQ3 10:46 4th & 2 at DEL 39, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs WKUQ4 3:40 4th & 1 at WKU 22, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
5. vs MTSUQ3 13:00 4th & 2 at DEL 48, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at JXSTQ3 6:16 4th & 9 at DEL 35, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs CONNQ3 11:01 4th & 4 at CONN 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs UTEPQ3 2:04 4th & 3 at UTEP 3, up 15Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

42nd of 136 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

   DSU
2. L

   COLO
3. W

   CONN
4. W

   FIU
5. L

   WKU
6. L

   JXST
7. W

   MTSU
8. L

   LIB
9. W

   LT
10. L

    SHSU
11. L

    WAKE
12. W

    UTEP
13. W

    UL

What moved it, 2025

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−0.11
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.28
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.33

Game by game

• DSUW 35-17 vs DSU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +8
• COLOL 7-31 at COLO6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• CONNW 44-41 vs CONN25% → 85%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −24
• FIUW 38-16 at FIU33% → 99%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +63, Clock +2
• WKUL 24-27 vs WKU53% → 18%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −5
• JXSTL 25-38 at JXST55% → 2%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts +1
• MTSUW 31-28 vs MTSU68% → 93%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• LIBL 30-59 at LIB37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37
• LTW 25-24 vs LT32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• SHSUL 23-26 at SHSU78% → 5%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3
• WAKEL 14-52 at WAKE10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• UTEPW 61-31 vs UTEP57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• ULW 20-13 vs UL42% → 88%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −2

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.