Duke

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.029th
  Defense+0.0861st
• 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.
  Offense38.3%12th
  Defense39.0%81st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1116th
  Defense+1.2530th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0610th
  Defense+0.0745th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0219th
  Defense+0.1067th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.7%14th
  Defense42.9%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.6%12th
  Defense31.7%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7327th
  Defense2.7170th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%69th
  Defense20.3%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.0%33rd
  Defense19.5%43rd

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, 2019

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. L
   ALA
2. W
   NCAT
3. W
   MTSU
4. W
   VT
5. L
   PITT
6. W
   GT
7. L
   UVA
8. L
   UNC
9. L
   ND
10. L
    SYR
11. L
    WAKE
12. W
    MIA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Duke.

Players, 2019

1. Quentin HarrisQB385 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 67th of 228 QBs
   1.19WAR0.53 to 1.83
2. Deon JacksonRB153 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 94th of 349 RBs
   0.41WAR0.27 to 0.53
3. Mataeo DurantRB66 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 215th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.22
4. AJ ReedPK15 plays · +0.452 pts/play · 49th of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.16
5. Aaron YoungWR35 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 225th of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Noah GrayTE56 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 12th of 207 TEs
   0.09WAR−0.01 to 0.18
7. Jalon CalhounWR46 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 251st of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Austin ParkerP46 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 47th of 100 punters
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.14

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63363344th of 130Roster talent: 633, 44th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918945th of 130Recruiting: 189, 45th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  29%29%118th of 130Returning production: 29%, 118th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.8−1.868th of 130SP+ rating: −1.8, 68th of 130 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.09 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 WAKEQ2 8:14 4th & 1 at DUKE 26, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. vs MIAQ2 1:40 4th & 1 at DUKE 33, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at VTQ3 5:56 4th & 2 at VT 14, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs PITTQ3 14:56 4th & 3 at DUKE 30, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at WAKEQ4 8:24 4th & 4 at DUKE 31, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at VTQ3 10:57 4th & 4 at VT 48, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs SYRQ2 14:53 4th & 15 at SYR 35, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at UVAQ3 13:55 4th & 2 at DUKE 35, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

93rd 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. L

   ALA
2. W

   NCAT
3. W

   MTSU
4. W

   VT
5. L

   PITT
6. W

   GT
7. L

   UVA
8. L

   UNC
9. L

   ND
10. L

    SYR
11. L

    WAKE
12. W

    MIA

What moved it, 2019

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−0.74
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• ALAL 3-42 at ALA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• NCATW 45-13 vs NCAT97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• MTSUW 41-18 at MTSU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• VTW 45-10 at VT37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +62, Clock +1
• PITTL 30-33 vs PITT58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• GTW 41-23 vs GT88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17
• UVAL 14-48 at UVA36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −36
• UNCL 17-20 at UNC38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• NDL 7-38 vs ND27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1
• SYRL 6-49 vs SYR72% → 0%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −67, Possession & field position −1
• WAKEL 27-39 at WAKE29% → 3%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −1
• MIAW 27-17 vs MIA24% → 98%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +53, Possession & field position −1

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.