Duke

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0324th
  Defense−0.0594th
• 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.
  Offense41.1%30th
  Defense36.9%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1328th
  Defense+1.2917th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1173rd
  Defense+0.0358th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0312th
  Defense−0.1599th
• 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%22nd
  Defense42.6%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.5%47th
  Defense26.4%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8848th
  Defense2.7071st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%40th
  Defense21.3%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%35th
  Defense19.5%83rd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. W
   NU
3. W
   BAY
4. W
   UNC
5. L
   MIA
6. L
   UVA
7. L
   FSU
8. L
   PITT
9. L
   VT
10. L
    ARMY
11. W
    GT
12. W
    WAKE
13. W
    NIU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Duke.

Players, 2017

1. Daniel JonesQB539 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 33rd of 226 QBs
   1.61WAR0.87 to 2.39
2. Shaun WilsonRB176 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 51st of 352 RBs
   0.40WAR0.26 to 0.54
3. Brittain BrownRB125 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 69th of 352 RBs
   0.37WAR0.28 to 0.45
4. Austin ParkerP75 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 5th of 95 punters
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.29
5. T.J. RahmingWR101 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 138th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.01 to 0.23
6. Johnathan LloydWR45 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.14
7. Chris TaylorWR42 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 286th of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
8. Daniel HelmTE24 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 19th of 199 TEs
   0.03WAR0.00 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62862840th of 130Roster talent: 628, 40th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18318346th of 130Recruiting: 183, 46th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%17th of 128Returning production: 83%, 17th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.1+6.146th of 128SP+ rating: +6.1, 46th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.08 of the 0.15 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 BAYQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at BAY 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs NUQ2 3:44 4th & 25 at NU 33, up 18Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. vs FSUQ4 14:11 4th & 4 at FSU 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at ARMYQ3 14:49 4th & 13 at ARMY 30, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
5. vs FSUQ4 6:02 4th & 5 at DUKE 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs FSUQ4 3:24 4th & 10 at DUKE 19, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at UVAQ4 14:58 4th & 8 at UVA 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at NIUQ2 12:59 4th & 2 at DUKE 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

64th of 130 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

   NCCU
2. W

   NU
3. W

   BAY
4. W

   UNC
5. L

   MIA
6. L

   UVA
7. L

   FSU
8. L

   PITT
9. L

   VT
10. L

    ARMY
11. W

    GT
12. W

    WAKE
13. W

    NIU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.36
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.11

Game by game

• NCCUW 60-7 vs NCCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• NUW 41-17 vs NU48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +1
• BAYW 34-20 vs BAY81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23
• UNCW 27-17 at UNC55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• MIAL 6-31 vs MIA38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• UVAL 21-28 at UVA56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −2
• FSUL 10-17 vs FSU30% → 10%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −36, Clock −3
• PITTL 17-24 vs PITT77% → 6%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• VTL 3-24 at VT16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20
• ARMYL 16-21 at ARMY63% → 8%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −3
• GTW 43-20 vs GT39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +52, Timeouts +1
• WAKEW 31-23 at WAKE23% → 97%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +60, Clock +4
• NIUW 36-14 at NIU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, 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.