Duke

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1233rd
  Defense+0.1167th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%59th
  Defense45.3%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.062nd
  Defense+0.9998th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1154th
  Defense+0.1332nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1531st
  Defense+0.1278th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.6%58th
  Defense50.8%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%61st
  Defense32.4%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2183rd
  Defense3.2610th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.8%99th
  Defense16.4%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense3.0%92nd

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, 2014

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 Duke 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
   ELON
2. W
   TROY
3. W
   KU
4. W
   TULN
5. L
   MIA
6. W
   GT
7. W
   UVA
8. W
   PITT
9. W
   SYR
10. L
    VT
11. L
    UNC
12. W
    WAKE
13. L
    ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Duke.

Players, 2014

1. Anthony BooneQB448 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 57th of 199 QBs
   1.54WAR0.85 to 2.36
2. Shaquille PowellRB123 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 80th of 350 RBs
   0.28WAR0.20 to 0.36
3. Jamison CrowderWR119 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 66th of 469 WRs
   0.21WAR0.06 to 0.40
4. Will MondayP52 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 5th of 94 punters
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.30
5. Ross MartinPK18 plays · +0.513 pts/play · 13th of 114 kickers
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
6. Josh SneadRB80 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 137th of 350 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
7. Issac BlakeneyWR64 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 120th of 469 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.26
8. Shaun WilsonRB78 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 163rd of 350 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21

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 Duke'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Duke's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 PITTQ4 2:56 4th & 3 at DUKE 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. at SYRQ3 12:03 4th & 1 at DUKE 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at MIAQ4 4:42 4th & 12 at MIA 22, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
4. vs VTQ4 0:43 4th & 21 at DUKE 40, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
5. vs UVAQ2 12:24 4th & 1 at UVA 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at SYRQ2 3:05 4th & 4 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at MIAQ2 1:57 4th & 3 at DUKE 42, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs KUQ2 8:21 4th & 1 at DUKE 23, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

43rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   ELON
2. W

   TROY
3. W

   KU
4. W

   TULN
5. L

   MIA
6. W

   GT
7. W

   UVA
8. W

   PITT
9. W

   SYR
10. L

    VT
11. L

    UNC
12. W

    WAKE
13. L

    ASU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Duke'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+0.46
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.21

Game by game

• ELONW 52-13 vs ELON99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TROYW 34-17 at TROY92% → 98%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• KUW 41-3 vs KU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +12
• TULNW 47-13 vs TULN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• MIAL 10-22 at MIA34% → 2%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• GTW 31-25 at GT37% → 94%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• UVAW 20-13 vs UVA62% → 93%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• PITTW 51-48 at PITT44% → 88%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +19
• SYRW 27-10 at SYR59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• VTL 16-17 vs VT67% → 5%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• UNCL 20-45 vs UNC66% → 0%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −62, Timeouts −1
• WAKEW 41-21 vs WAKE90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• ASUL 31-36 vs ASU26% → 7%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Duke's side.

Closest call

DUKE 46-45 CLEM (2025) - Duke dropped to a 2.6% win probability before pulling it out.