Liberty

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+0.1769th
  Defense+0.0478th
• 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.
  Offense48.6%94th
  Defense38.3%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.103rd
  Defense+1.3132nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1779th
  Defense+0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1748th
  Defense+0.1068th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.9%95th
  Defense42.0%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.7%68th
  Defense30.6%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4795th
  Defense2.6984th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.4%83rd
  Defense19.9%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%66th
  Defense15.1%36th

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 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
   NMSU
3. W
   UTEP
4. W
   ECU
5. W
   FIU
6. L
   KENN
7. L
   JXST
8. W
   MTSU
9. W
   MASS
10. W
    WKU
11. L
    SHSU
12. L
    BUF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Liberty.

Players, 2024

1. Kaidon SalterQB304 plays · +0.309 pts/play · 41st of 232 QBs
   1.76WAR1.19 to 2.24
2. Quinton CooleyRB167 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 27th of 373 RBs
   0.49WAR0.36 to 0.62
3. Billy LucasRB101 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 99th of 373 RBs
   0.28WAR0.21 to 0.34
4. Treon SibleyWR19 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 157th of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
5. Vaughn BlueRB35 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 271st of 373 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
6. Max MorganP42 plays · +0.041 pts/play · 70th of 106 punters
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.10
7. Bentley HanshawTE8 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 107th of 221 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Jacob JenkinsTE12 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 112th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.05

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57057088th of 131Roster talent: 570, 88th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130103rd of 131Recruiting: 130, 103rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%18th of 130Returning production: 74%, 18th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.2+0.269th of 131SP+ rating: +0.2, 69th 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 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 0.12 of the 0.15 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 FIUQ4 0:27 4th & 1 at LIB 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it4.0 pts
2. at SHSUQ4 2:38 4th & 13 at SHSU 20, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal3.0 pts
3. at KENNQ4 7:27 4th & 11 at KENN 34, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.9 pts
4. at NMSUQ3 11:34 4th & 2 at LIB 45, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
5. at NMSUQ4 13:07 4th & 3 at LIB 20, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
6. vs UTEPQ3 6:14 4th & 2 at LIB 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
7. vs UTEPQ2 1:26 4th & 2 at UTEP 44, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs FIUQ3 3:20 4th & 3 at LIB 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

108th of 134 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

   NMSU
3. W

   UTEP
4. W

   ECU
5. W

   FIU
6. L

   KENN
7. L

   JXST
8. W

   MTSU
9. W

   MASS
10. W

    WKU
11. L

    SHSU
12. L

    BUF

What moved it, 2024

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+0.15
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.17
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.40

Game by game

• CAMW 41-24 vs CAM99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +4
• NMSUW 30-24 at NMSU95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +13, Clock +1
• UTEPW 28-10 vs UTEP95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11, Clock −1
• ECUW 35-24 vs ECU73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29
• FIUW 31-24 vs FIU86% → 91%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts −10
• KENNL 24-27 at KENN96% → 12%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• JXSTL 21-31 vs JXST63% → 3%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −11
• MTSUW 37-17 at MTSU81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• MASSW 35-34 at MASS88% → 90%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +10
• WKUW 38-21 vs WKU58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts −2
• SHSUL 18-20 at SHSU60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• BUFL 7-26 vs BUF49% → 1%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −51, Clock −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.