Liberty

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+0.2060th
  Defense+0.0976th
• 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.
  Offense45.4%70th
  Defense41.1%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3784th
  Defense+1.1395th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3196th
  Defense+0.1243rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1833rd
  Defense+0.1183rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.1%75th
  Defense46.7%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.2%60th
  Defense28.9%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.7199th
  Defense3.1734th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense9.9%99th
  Defense11.8%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%31st
  Defense17.7%69th

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 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
   CAM
2. W
   TROY
3. W
   ODU
4. L
   SYR
5. W
   UAB
6. W
   MTSU
7. L
   ULM
8. W
   UNT
9. W
   MASS
10. L
    MISS
11. L
    UL
12. L
    ARMY
13. W
    EMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Liberty.

Players, 2021

1. Malik WillisQB368 plays · +0.346 pts/play · 16th of 219 QBs
   2.39WAR1.70 to 3.05
2. Shedro LouisRB68 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 181st of 387 RBs
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.33
3. T.J. GreenRB56 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 204th of 387 RBs
   0.22WAR0.18 to 0.27
4. Joshua MackRB68 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 207th of 387 RBs
   0.21WAR0.15 to 0.29
5. CJ DanielsWR40 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 155th of 474 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Demario DouglasWR41 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 172nd of 474 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
7. Kevin ShaaWR26 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 234th of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. DJ StubbsWR16 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 363rd of 474 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.07

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  155155126th of 130Roster talent: 155, 126th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  116116125th of 130Recruiting: 116, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  90%90%28th of 128Returning production: 90%, 28th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.4+8.449th of 130SP+ rating: +8.4, 49th 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 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 0.08 of the 0.11 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 UABQ4 2:56 4th & 7 at LIB 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.1 pts
2. at UNTQ2 0:07 4th & 10 at UNT 27, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.8 pts
3. vs ULQ2 9:06 4th & 17 at LIB 47, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.7 pts
4. at UABQ2 8:54 4th & 3 at UAB 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
5. vs ARMYQ4 5:27 4th & 10 at ARMY 25, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.8 pts
6. at ULMQ4 9:49 4th & 5 at LIB 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
7. vs ULQ2 12:46 4th & 3 at LIB 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. at UNTQ2 1:08 4th & 8 at UNT 35, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

112th 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

   CAM
2. W

   TROY
3. W

   ODU
4. L

   SYR
5. W

   UAB
6. W

   MTSU
7. L

   ULM
8. W

   UNT
9. W

   MASS
10. L

    MISS
11. L

    UL
12. L

    ARMY
13. W

    EMU

What moved it, 2021

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−1.18
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.05
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.28

Game by game

• CAMW 48-7 vs CAM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• TROYW 21-13 at TROY61% → 91%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• ODUW 45-17 vs ODU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• SYRL 21-24 at SYR66% → 4%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• UABW 36-12 at UAB47% → 12%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +3
• MTSUW 41-13 vs MTSU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• ULML 28-31 at ULM97% → 19%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −12, Possession & field position −2
• UNTW 35-26 at UNT92% → 93%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• MASSW 62-17 vs MASS100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• MISSL 14-27 at MISS28% → 2%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• ULL 14-42 vs UL65% → 0%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −61, Clock −2
• ARMYL 16-31 vs ARMY61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• EMUW 56-20 vs EMU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position −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.