Navy

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+0.2795th
  Defense+0.0185th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%61st
  Defense41.2%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3689th
  Defense+1.1684th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2695th
  Defense+0.1141st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2881st
  Defense−0.0698th
• 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%82nd
  Defense48.6%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.9%18th
  Defense25.0%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2678th
  Defense3.2720th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.9%90th
  Defense13.2%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.3%96th
  Defense14.4%26th

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 Navy 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
   BUCK
2. W
   TEM
3. W
   MEM
4. W
   UAB
5. W
   AF
6. W
   CLT
7. L
   ND
8. L
   RICE
9. W
   USF
10. L
    TULN
11. W
    ECU
12. W
    ARMY
13. W
    OU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2024

1. Blake HorvathQB229 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 45th of 232 QBs
   1.72WAR1.23 to 2.20
2. Alex TeczaRB107 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 104th of 373 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.36
3. Eli HeidenreichWR87 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 37th of 452 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.32
4. Daba FofanaFB34 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 273rd of 373 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
5. Braxton WoodsonQB45 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 217th of 232 QBs
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.14
6. Brandon ChatmanWR52 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 263rd of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09
7. Nathan KirkwoodPK5 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 108th of 114 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Amin HassanRB3 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 362nd of 373 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Navy'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

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 Navy'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 0.04 of the 0.10 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 RICEQ4 8:34 4th & 4 at RICE 4, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. at ECUQ2 0:02 4th & 4 at ECU 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs MEMQ3 6:39 4th & 5 at MEM 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs OUQ2 1:39 4th & 8 at OU 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs OUQ4 1:47 4th & 1 at NAVY 14, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at ARMYQ2 4:05 4th & 13 at ARMY 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs OUQ3 2:07 4th & 4 at OU 20, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at USFQ3 6:29 4th & 3 at USF 49, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

8th of 134 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Navy's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   BUCK
2. W

   TEM
3. W

   MEM
4. W

   UAB
5. W

   AF
6. W

   CLT
7. L

   ND
8. L

   RICE
9. W

   USF
10. L

    TULN
11. W

    ECU
12. W

    ARMY
13. W

    OU

What moved it, 2024

Every game starts at Navy'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+2.73
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.21

Game by game

• BUCKW 49-21 vs BUCK97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• TEMW 38-11 vs TEM79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +23
• MEMW 56-44 vs MEM21% → 97%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +47, Possession & field position −1
• UABW 41-18 at UAB54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• AFW 34-7 at AF77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• CLTW 51-17 vs CLT82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• NDL 14-51 vs ND14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• RICEL 10-24 at RICE77% → 1%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −56
• USFW 28-7 at USF50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• TULNL 0-35 vs TULN27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1
• ECUW 34-20 at ECU38% → 99%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• ARMYW 31-13 at ARMY31% → 99%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• OUW 21-20 vs OU37% → 94%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position +1

Points of win probability, from Navy's side.

Closest call

NAVY 27-24 TULN (2020) - Navy dropped to a 3.6% win probability before pulling it out.