Duke

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0835th
  Defense+0.1435th
• 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.
  Offense45.0%62nd
  Defense43.5%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0810th
  Defense+1.2917th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0436th
  Defense+0.0848th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1542nd
  Defense+0.2327th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.7%66th
  Defense47.9%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.2%53rd
  Defense34.6%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2181st
  Defense2.7965th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.7%92nd
  Defense23.0%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%51st
  Defense16.4%51st

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, 2016

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
   NCCU
2. L
   WAKE
3. L
   NU
4. W
   ND
5. L
   UVA
6. W
   ARMY
7. L
   LOU
8. L
   GT
9. L
   VT
10. W
    UNC
11. L
    PITT
12. L
    MIA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Duke.

Players, 2016

1. Daniel JonesQB457 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 32nd of 218 QBs
   1.78WAR1.00 to 2.48
2. Shaun WilsonRB134 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 113th of 347 RBs
   0.32WAR0.16 to 0.46
3. Jela DuncanRB67 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 166th of 347 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.28
4. T.J. RahmingWR90 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 101st of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.05 to 0.31
5. Anthony NashWR38 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 153rd of 417 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
6. Johnathan LloydWR34 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 269th of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Chris TaylorWR45 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 317th of 417 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11
8. Daniel HelmTE26 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 45th of 195 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.06

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60060048th of 128Roster talent: 600, 48th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18218246th of 128Recruiting: 182, 46th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%57th of 128Returning production: 69%, 57th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.8−2.880th of 128SP+ rating: −2.8, 80th 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, 2016

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 0.27 of the 0.32 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 NDQ4 1:24 4th & 1 at ND 1, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−15.4 pts
2. vs UNCQ4 1:51 4th & 10 at UNC 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−5.8 pts
3. vs VTQ4 4:06 4th & 7 at VT 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
4. vs UVAQ3 5:40 4th & 3 at UVA 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs UVAQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at midfield, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs VTQ4 11:41 4th & 4 at VT 46, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at MIAQ3 9:28 4th & 2 at DUKE 41, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs WAKEQ2 10:38 4th & 17 at WAKE 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

102nd 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   NCCU
2. L

   WAKE
3. L

   NU
4. W

   ND
5. L

   UVA
6. W

   ARMY
7. L

   LOU
8. L

   GT
9. L

   VT
10. W

    UNC
11. L

    PITT
12. L

    MIA

What moved it, 2016

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−2.00
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.87

Game by game

• NCCUW 49-6 vs NCCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• WAKEL 14-24 vs WAKE74% → 5%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• NUL 13-24 at NU43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37
• NDW 38-35 at ND10% → 94%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• UVAL 20-34 vs UVA65% → 1%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• LOUL 14-24 at LOU4% → 3%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −9
• GTL 35-38 at GT28% → 13%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts +1
• VTL 21-24 vs VT25% → 5%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• UNCW 28-27 vs UNC26% → 80%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +3
• PITTL 14-56 at PITT33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34
• MIAL 21-40 at MIA16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −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.