Liberty

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1040th
  Defense+0.1339th
• 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.
  Offense42.3%37th
  Defense46.7%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2775th
  Defense+1.2051st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0640th
  Defense+0.1713th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1443rd
  Defense+0.1064th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%26th
  Defense53.0%12th
• 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%67th
  Defense32.7%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7935th
  Defense3.276th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%80th
  Defense16.1%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%54th
  Defense14.7%25th

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, 2018

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. W
   ODU
2. L
   ARMY
3. L
   UNT
4. W
   UNM
5. L
   NMSU
6. W
   TROY
7. W
   IDST
8. L
   MASS
9. L
   UVA
10. L
    AUB
11. W
    NMSU
12. W
    NORF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Liberty.

Players, 2018

1. Stephen CalvertQB319 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 65th of 225 QBs
   1.29WAR0.76 to 1.77
2. Frankie HicksonRB169 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 50th of 351 RBs
   0.54WAR0.44 to 0.65
3. Peytton PickettRB69 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 195th of 351 RBs
   0.22WAR0.18 to 0.27
4. Antonio Gandy-GoldenWR81 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 81st of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.26
5. B.J. FarrowWR58 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 201st of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.17
6. DJ StubbsWR58 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 242nd of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.14
7. Zac FoutzTE9 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Fidel OgbeifunTE9 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 117th of 204 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 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 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9494130th of 130Roster talent: 94, 130th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  4949130th of 130Recruiting: 49, 130th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.7−19.7121st of 130SP+ rating: −19.7, 121st 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, 2018

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.17 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 ODUQ3 4:58 4th & 3 at ODU 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.0 pts
2. vs TROYQ4 12:48 4th & 3 at LIB 44, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
3. vs TROYQ3 6:09 4th & 4 at TROY 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
4. vs TROYQ4 0:18 4th & 16 at TROY 18, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.4 pts
5. vs NMSUQ4 10:03 4th & 1 at NMSU 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
6. at ARMYQ2 10:53 4th & 4 at ARMY 42, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs ODUQ2 6:40 4th & 13 at ODU 31, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.9 pts
8. vs NMSUQ2 8:21 4th & 2 at LIB 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

30th of 130 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. W

   ODU
2. L

   ARMY
3. L

   UNT
4. W

   UNM
5. L

   NMSU
6. W

   TROY
7. W

   IDST
8. L

   MASS
9. L

   UVA
10. L

    AUB
11. W

    NMSU
12. W

    NORF

What moved it, 2018

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+0.92
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.25

Game by game

• ODUW 52-10 vs ODU37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +56, Timeouts −1
• ARMYL 14-38 at ARMY32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• UNTL 7-47 vs UNT22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• UNMW 52-43 at UNM32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +58, Clock +4
• NMSUL 41-49 at NMSU59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• TROYW 22-16 vs TROY24% → 90%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• IDSTW 48-41 vs IDST73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position +1
• MASSL 59-62 at MASS49% → 41%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −9: Timeouts +25, Clock −16
• UVAL 24-45 at UVA6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10
• AUBL 0-53 at AUB3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• NMSUW 28-21 vs NMSU68% → 95%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• NORFW 52-17 vs NORF97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6

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.