Duke

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+0.0322nd
  Defense+0.0854th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%40th
  Defense41.0%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.087th
  Defense+1.2525th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0413th
  Defense−0.0385th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1036th
  Defense+0.2425th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%20th
  Defense44.4%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.1%71st
  Defense33.7%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0475th
  Defense2.6968th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%97th
  Defense19.2%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%28th
  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 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
   TULN
2. W
   NCCU
3. L
   NU
4. W
   GT
5. W
   BC
6. W
   ARMY
7. W
   VT
8. L
   MIA
9. L
   UNC
10. L
    PITT
11. L
    UVA
12. W
    WAKE
13. W
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Duke.

Players, 2015

1. Thomas SirkQB521 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 19th of 205 QBs
   2.37WAR1.62 to 3.12
2. Parker BoehmeQB76 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 157th of 205 QBs
   0.33WAR0.19 to 0.46
3. Shaquille PowellRB133 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 91st of 333 RBs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.36
4. Will MondayP59 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 3rd of 92 punters
   0.22WAR0.10 to 0.34
5. Ross MartinPK23 plays · +0.513 pts/play · 5th of 115 kickers
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.28
6. Jela DuncanRB69 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 148th of 333 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
7. T.J. RahmingWR67 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 117th of 411 WRs
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.26
8. Anthony NashWR53 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 120th of 411 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 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 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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56356353rd of 128Roster talent: 563, 53rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117157th of 128Recruiting: 171, 57th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%104th of 127Returning production: 39%, 104th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.4+3.465th of 128SP+ rating: +3.4, 65th 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 Duke's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.23 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 BCQ4 11:58 4th & 2 at BC 43, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.6 pts
2. vs NUQ4 14:25 4th & 2 at NU 20, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs BCQ4 15:00 4th & 10 at BC 34, up 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
4. vs GTQ2 10:03 4th & 1 at DUKE 44, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs GTQ4 14:49 4th & 3 at GT 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs GTQ2 4:32 4th & 1 at DUKE 33, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at UVAQ4 2:38 4th & 15 at UVA 36, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
8. at VTQ4 1:04 4th & 3 at VT 28, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

47th 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

   TULN
2. W

   NCCU
3. L

   NU
4. W

   GT
5. W

   BC
6. W

   ARMY
7. W

   VT
8. L

   MIA
9. L

   UNC
10. L

    PITT
11. L

    UVA
12. W

    WAKE
13. W

    IU

What moved it, 2015

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+0.15
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.09

Game by game

• TULNW 37-7 at TULN80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• NCCUW 55-0 vs NCCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NUL 10-19 vs NU58% → 4%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• GTW 34-20 vs GT27% → 99%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +3
• BCW 9-7 vs BC70% → 78%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +3
• ARMYW 44-3 at ARMY82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• VTW 45-43 at VT28% → 88%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +20
• MIAL 27-30 vs MIA66% → 14%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• UNCL 31-66 at UNC23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
• PITTL 13-31 vs PITT57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• UVAL 34-42 at UVA43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• WAKEW 27-21 at WAKE61% → 94%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• IUW 44-41 vs IU46% → 83%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts −20

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.