Duke

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1132nd
  Defense+0.343rd
• 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.
  Offense42.9%45th
  Defense46.7%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2024th
  Defense+1.443rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0937th
  Defense+0.2511th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2352nd
  Defense+0.542nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%60th
  Defense50.2%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%27th
  Defense39.8%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1660th
  Defense3.2820th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.6%80th
  Defense14.4%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%53rd
  Defense16.1%38th

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, 2021

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
   CLT
2. W
   NCAT
3. W
   NU
4. W
   KU
5. L
   UNC
6. L
   GT
7. L
   UVA
8. L
   WAKE
9. L
   PITT
10. L
    VT
11. L
    LOU
12. L
    MIA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Duke.

Players, 2021

1. Mataeo DurantRB221 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 18th of 387 RBs
   0.84WAR0.62 to 1.09
2. Gunnar HolmbergQB300 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 104th of 219 QBs
   0.77WAR0.17 to 1.38
3. Porter WilsonP43 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 6th of 101 punters
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.34
4. Jake BoboWR74 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 58th of 474 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
5. Jalon CalhounWR50 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 234th of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17
6. Charlie HamPK14 plays · +0.336 pts/play · 41st of 128 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Riley LeonardQB62 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 200th of 219 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.18
8. Eli PancolWR21 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 368th of 474 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.08

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60660660th of 130Roster talent: 606, 60th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917959th of 130Recruiting: 179, 59th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%75th of 128Returning production: 68%, 75th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.5−13.5113th of 130SP+ rating: −13.5, 113th 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, 2021

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 0.09 of the 0.13 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 GTQ4 5:06 4th & 4 at GT 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs NUQ2 2:16 4th & 1 at NU 9, up 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs NUQ3 3:45 4th & 3 at NU 34, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs GTQ3 9:10 4th & 2 at GT 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at CLTQ4 7:13 4th & 13 at CLT 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
6. vs GTQ2 0:49 4th & 1 at GT 25, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs NUQ2 12:08 4th & 3 at NU 5, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at UVAQ3 3:07 4th & 5 at UVA 19, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

101st 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

   CLT
2. W

   NCAT
3. W

   NU
4. W

   KU
5. L

   UNC
6. L

   GT
7. L

   UVA
8. L

   WAKE
9. L

   PITT
10. L

    VT
11. L

    LOU
12. L

    MIA

What moved it, 2021

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−0.75
• Clock−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• CLTL 28-31 at CLT67% → 16%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position −3
• NCATW 45-17 vs NCAT94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• NUW 30-23 vs NU50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +46, Possession & field position −1
• KUW 52-33 vs KU85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Possession & field position −1
• UNCL 7-38 at UNC10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• GTL 27-31 vs GT36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• UVAL 0-48 at UVA20% → 49%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +4, Possession & field position +4
• WAKEL 7-45 at WAKE13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• PITTL 29-54 vs PITT8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• VTL 17-48 at VT20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• LOUL 22-62 vs LOU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• MIAL 10-47 vs MIA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12

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.