Liberty

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0529th
  Defense−0.0495th
• 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.
  Offense41.3%39th
  Defense36.3%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2972nd
  Defense+1.2835th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0949th
  Defense0.0079th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1735th
  Defense+0.1080th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%56th
  Defense41.5%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.4%11th
  Defense27.0%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1866th
  Defense2.5895th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%24th
  Defense24.2%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.4%14th
  Defense22.3%98th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   USM
2. W
   UAB
3. L
   WAKE
4. W
   AKR
5. W
   ODU
6. W
   MASS
7. W
   GWEB
8. W
   BYU
9. W
   ARK
10. L
    CONN
11. L
    VT
12. L
    NMSU
13. L
    TOL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Liberty.

Players, 2022

1. Kaidon SalterQB206 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 112th of 234 QBs
   0.55WAR0.12 to 1.03
2. Johnathan BennettQB247 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 120th of 234 QBs
   0.50WAR−0.02 to 1.04
3. Dae Dae HunterRB117 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 53rd of 384 RBs
   0.41WAR0.31 to 0.52
4. Demario DouglasWR79 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 10th of 455 WRs
   0.33WAR0.18 to 0.47
5. Shedro LouisRB107 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 105th of 384 RBs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.39
6. T.J. GreenRB43 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 227th of 384 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
7. Aidan AlvesP52 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 24th of 102 punters
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.20
8. Nick BrownPK17 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 69th of 110 kickers
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.10

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  162162127th of 129Roster talent: 162, 127th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  128128111th of 129Recruiting: 128, 111th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%97th of 128Returning production: 36%, 97th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.5−1.572nd of 129SP+ rating: −1.5, 72nd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.09 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 VTQ4 4:28 4th & 12 at VT 40, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.0 pts
2. at ARKQ4 3:47 4th & 1 at LIB 43, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at ODUQ3 11:52 4th & 3 at ODU 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at MASSQ3 9:34 4th & 2 at LIB 28, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at ODUQ4 2:37 4th & 1 at ODU 1, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at TOLQ2 8:28 4th & 2 at LIB 30, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at USMQ2 3:58 4th & 3 at LIB 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at USMQ1 5:18 4th & 1 at LIB 26, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

43rd of 131 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

   USM
2. W

   UAB
3. L

   WAKE
4. W

   AKR
5. W

   ODU
6. W

   MASS
7. W

   GWEB
8. W

   BYU
9. W

   ARK
10. L

    CONN
11. L

    VT
12. L

    NMSU
13. L

    TOL

What moved it, 2022

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−0.30
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.22
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.71

Game by game

• USMW 29-27 at USM51% → 40%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −11: Timeouts +25, Clock −16
• UABW 21-14 vs UAB28% → 97%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +3
• WAKEL 36-37 at WAKE10% → 4%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• AKRW 21-12 vs AKR95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +10
• ODUW 38-24 at ODU54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +50, Clock +1
• MASSW 42-24 at MASS90% → 2%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −88: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −1
• GWEBW 21-20 vs GWEB93% → 95%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• BYUW 41-14 vs BYU27% → 100%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +62, Timeouts −1
• ARKW 21-19 at ARK12% → 96%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• CONNL 33-36 at CONN80% → 4%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3
• VTL 22-23 vs VT74% → 5%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• NMSUL 14-49 vs NMSU93% → 0%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −93: Scoreboard −70, Clock −2
• TOLL 19-21 at TOL38% → 8%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2

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.