Liberty

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1959th
  Defense−0.0482nd
• 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.
  Offense48.9%82nd
  Defense33.3%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1214th
  Defense+1.3517th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1456th
  Defense−0.0171st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3267th
  Defense+0.0480th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.8%80th
  Defense37.4%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.4%72nd
  Defense26.3%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4887th
  Defense2.7762nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.2%89th
  Defense23.7%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%59th
  Defense19.1%82nd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Liberty 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
   JMU
2. W
   GWEB
3. W
   BALL
4. W
   CCU
5. W
   DEL
6. W
   SHSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Liberty.

Players, 2026

1. Kam DavisRB54 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 31st of 320 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
2. Deshawn PurdieQB115 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 117th of 192 QBs
   0.14WAR−0.05 to 0.33
3. Peyton JonesRB42 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 162nd of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
4. Jamari PersonWR13 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 215th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
5. Ethan VaskoQB5 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 189th of 192 QBs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03
6. Terron KellmanRB6 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 277th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.01
7. Jaylon ColemanRB5 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 277th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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 Liberty'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63363379th of 138Roster talent: 633, 79th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  149149103rd of 138Recruiting: 149, 103rd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  38%38%71st of 136Returning production: 38%, 71st of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.3+7.349th of 138SP+ rating so far: +7.3, 49th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Liberty'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 0.06 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 CCUQ3 4:52 4th & 2 at CCU 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at CCUQ2 1:32 4th & 26 at CCU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. vs GWEBQ4 8:26 4th & 13 at GWEB 36, down 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
4. at DELQ3 3:22 4th & 4 at DEL 4, up 20Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs BALLQ2 8:48 4th & 3 at BALL 27, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at DELQ3 0:30 4th & 12 at DEL 34, up 23Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at JMUQ4 11:40 4th & 6 at JMU 11, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at JMUQ1 8:39 4th & 8 at JMU 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

22nd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Liberty's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   JMU
2. W

   GWEB
3. W

   BALL
4. W

   CCU
5. W

   DEL
6. W

   SHSU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Liberty'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+1.04
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.33

Game by game

• JMUL 13-20 at JMU37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• GWEBW 24-23 vs GWEB96% → 95%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• BALLW 51-15 vs BALL85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• CCUW 34-17 at CCU59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +44, Clock +5
• DELW 30-14 at DEL62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• SHSUW 35-3 vs SHSU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from Liberty's side.

Closest call

LIB 42-24 MASS (2022) - Liberty dropped to a 1.1% win probability before pulling it out.