Duke

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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−0.047th
  Defense+0.2219th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%24th
  Defense42.8%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2648th
  Defense+1.462nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0712th
  Defense+0.2211th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0119th
  Defense+0.2240th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.9%11th
  Defense46.6%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%58th
  Defense34.7%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.335th
  Defense3.1525th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%33rd
  Defense17.7%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.7%13th
  Defense15.7%40th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   ND
2. L
   BC
3. L
   UVA
4. L
   VT
5. W
   SYR
6. L
   NCSU
7. W
   CLT
8. L
   UNC
9. L
   GT
10. L
    MIA
11. L
    FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Duke.

Players, 2020

1. Mataeo DurantRB102 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 40th of 338 RBs
   0.43WAR0.33 to 0.53
2. Deon JacksonRB148 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 56th of 338 RBs
   0.40WAR0.27 to 0.52
3. Chase BriceQB350 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 106th of 212 QBs
   0.30WAR−0.29 to 0.88
4. Porter WilsonP43 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 2nd of 77 punters
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.18
5. Jake BoboWR39 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 216th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
6. Jalon CalhounWR48 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 227th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.12
7. Noah GrayTE25 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 60th of 191 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.04 to 0.05
8. Jake MarwedeTE14 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 92nd of 191 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61761750th of 127Roster talent: 617, 50th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18118156th of 127Recruiting: 181, 56th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  38%38%105th of 127Returning production: 38%, 105th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.2−4.287th of 127SP+ rating: −4.2, 87th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.05 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 SYRQ3 0:35 4th & 3 at SYR 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs BCQ3 4:30 4th & 2 at BC 17, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at NCSUQ4 11:18 4th & 3 at DUKE 38, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at UVAQ2 8:55 4th & 13 at UVA 31, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at GTQ4 10:06 4th & 16 at GT 45, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at GTQ2 9:09 4th & 12 at GT 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at NDQ1 0:16 4th & 1 at DUKE 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at UVAQ4 5:03 4th & 16 at UVA 40, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

124th of 127 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

   ND
2. L

   BC
3. L

   UVA
4. L

   VT
5. W

   SYR
6. L

   NCSU
7. W

   CLT
8. L

   UNC
9. L

   GT
10. L

    MIA
11. L

    FSU

What moved it, 2020

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−2.04
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• NDL 13-27 at ND7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12
• BCL 6-26 vs BC59% → 16%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• UVAL 20-38 at UVA39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +1
• VTL 31-38 vs VT22% → 3%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• SYRW 38-24 at SYR56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• NCSUL 20-31 at NCSU37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• CLTW 53-19 vs CLT73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28
• UNCL 24-56 vs UNC16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• GTL 33-56 at GT48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1
• MIAL 0-48 vs MIA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• FSUL 35-56 at FSU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −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.