Liberty

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0944th
  Defense+0.1533rd
• 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.
  Offense43.9%64th
  Defense41.7%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1821st
  Defense+1.2927th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1471st
  Defense+0.1520th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1024th
  Defense+0.1750th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%61st
  Defense45.9%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.
  Offense30.7%51st
  Defense32.4%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9147th
  Defense3.1816th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%69th
  Defense17.5%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%43rd
  Defense13.2%14th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   ME
2. L
   JXST
3. L
   BGSU
4. L
   JMU
5. L
   ODU
6. W
   UTEP
7. W
   NMSU
8. W
   DEL
9. L
   MOST
10. L
    FIU
11. L
    LT
12. L
    KENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Liberty.

Players, 2025

1. Ethan VaskoQB286 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 66th of 231 QBs
   1.23WAR0.70 to 1.75
2. Evan DickensRB203 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 13th of 365 RBs
   0.42WAR0.30 to 0.55
3. Donte Lee Jr.WR45 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 132nd of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
4. Michael MerdingerQB56 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 188th of 231 QBs
   0.13WAR0.01 to 0.25
5. Jay BillingsleyPK19 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 37th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Vaughn BlueRB52 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 244th of 365 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Julian GrayRB18 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 272nd of 365 RBs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.10
8. Jamari PersonWR39 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 348th of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59959984th of 134Roster talent: 599, 84th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13813898th of 134Recruiting: 138, 98th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  30%30%72nd of 132Returning production: 30%, 72nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.0−9.0100th of 134SP+ rating: −9.0, 100th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 KENNQ4 10:03 4th & 2 at LIB 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at FIUQ2 0:01 4th & 22 at FIU 39, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−2.7 pts
3. at JXSTQ3 11:02 4th & 2 at LIB 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs MOSTQ2 2:26 4th & 5 at MOST 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at UTEPQ2 6:06 4th & 3 at LIB 46, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs MEQ3 9:16 4th & 2 at LIB 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at JXSTQ4 1:33 4th & 25 at LIB 38, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UTEPQ2 8:25 4th & 3 at UTEP 11, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

129th of 136 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

   ME
2. L

   JXST
3. L

   BGSU
4. L

   JMU
5. L

   ODU
6. W

   UTEP
7. W

   NMSU
8. W

   DEL
9. L

   MOST
10. L

    FIU
11. L

    LT
12. L

    KENN

What moved it, 2025

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−1.42
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.74

Game by game

• MEW 28-7 vs ME95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• JXSTL 24-34 at JXST70% → 3%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −3
• BGSUL 13-23 at BGSU68% → 4%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −3
• JMUL 13-31 vs JMU29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• ODUL 7-21 at ODU16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• UTEPW 19-8 at UTEP47% → 97%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• NMSUW 30-27 vs NMSU77% → 82%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +1
• DELW 59-30 vs DEL63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37
• MOSTL 17-21 vs MOST73% → 10%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• FIUL 27-34 at FIU55% → 59%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +4: Timeouts +25, Clock −15
• LTL 28-34 at LT52% → 15%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +22
• KENNL 42-48 vs KENN49% → 18%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −19

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.