Duke

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0214th
  Defense−0.0292nd
• 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.
  Offense37.9%12th
  Defense38.6%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2544th
  Defense+1.1389th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.141st
  Defense0.0079th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1644th
  Defense−0.0494th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.9%11th
  Defense43.2%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.5%21st
  Defense29.3%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.432nd
  Defense2.7874th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.1%3rd
  Defense21.8%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%21st
  Defense21.8%98th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   ELON
2. W
   NU
3. W
   CONN
4. W
   MTSU
5. W
   UNC
6. L
   GT
7. W
   FSU
8. L
   SMU
9. L
   MIA
10. W
    NCSU
11. W
    VT
12. W
    WAKE
13. L
    MISS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Duke.

Players, 2024

1. Maalik MurphyQB371 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 100th of 232 QBs
   0.85WAR0.13 to 1.67
2. Star ThomasRB213 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 40th of 373 RBs
   0.43WAR0.28 to 0.55
3. Jordan MooreWR50 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 53rd of 452 WRs
   0.18WAR0.05 to 0.30
4. Eli PancolWR52 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 93rd of 452 WRs
   0.14WAR0.01 to 0.30
5. Peyton JonesRB66 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 208th of 373 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Todd PelinoPK17 plays · +0.380 pts/play · 13th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Kade ReynoldsonP67 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 22nd of 106 punters
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.20
8. Que'Sean BrownWR42 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 141st of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.19

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63663670th of 131Roster talent: 636, 70th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18518559th of 131Recruiting: 185, 59th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%59th of 130Returning production: 50%, 59th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.6+5.643rd of 131SP+ rating: +5.6, 43rd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.32 of the 0.36 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 UNCQ4 1:42 4th & 1 at UNC 45, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it9.8 pts
2. vs VTQ4 0:10 4th & 1 at VT 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal8.7 pts
3. vs SMUQ4 2:40 4th & 9 at SMU 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it3.8 pts
4. at MIAQ2 0:01 4th & 16 at DUKE 19, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting2.5 pts
5. at NCSUQ4 6:57 4th & 1 at DUKE 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.4 pts
6. vs CONNQ3 10:42 4th & 1 at DUKE 19, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.0 pts
7. vs NUQ2 2:35 4th & 3 at DUKE 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
8. at GTQ4 4:03 4th & 4 at GT 26, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

10th of 134 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

   ELON
2. W

   NU
3. W

   CONN
4. W

   MTSU
5. W

   UNC
6. L

   GT
7. W

   FSU
8. L

   SMU
9. L

   MIA
10. W

    NCSU
11. W

    VT
12. W

    WAKE
13. L

    MISS

What moved it, 2024

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+0.09
• Clock+0.08
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• ELONW 26-3 vs ELON94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• NUW 26-20 vs NU48% → 78%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +20
• CONNW 26-21 vs CONN88% → 95%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• MTSUW 45-17 at MTSU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• UNCW 21-20 vs UNC45% → 91%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +1
• GTL 14-24 at GT21% → 2%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• FSUW 23-16 vs FSU57% → 98%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• SMUL 27-28 vs SMU21% → 42%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +21: Timeouts −18, Scoreboard −18
• MIAL 31-53 at MIA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• NCSUW 29-19 at NCSU41% → 96%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• VTW 31-28 vs VT40% → 80%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +3
• WAKEW 23-17 at WAKE61% → 96%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• MISSL 20-52 vs MISS11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14

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.