Navy

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+0.2592nd
  Defense+0.1340th
• 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.
  Offense49.0%94th
  Defense40.7%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2348th
  Defense+1.3219th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2595th
  Defense+0.0556th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4095th
  Defense+0.2820th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.7%94th
  Defense45.7%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.5%81st
  Defense29.5%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4597th
  Defense2.8557th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.4%99th
  Defense18.0%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense9.2%99th
  Defense12.5%9th

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 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
   VMI
2. W
   UAB
3. W
   TLSA
4. W
   RICE
5. W
   AF
6. W
   TEM
7. W
   FAU
8. L
   UNT
9. L
   ND
10. W
    USF
11. W
    MEM
12. W
    ARMY
13. W
    CIN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2025

1. Blake HorvathQB360 plays · +0.280 pts/play · 21st of 231 QBs
   1.89WAR1.10 to 2.59
2. Eli HeidenreichWR129 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 14th of 451 WRs
   0.34WAR0.18 to 0.50
3. Alex TeczaRB143 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 43rd of 365 RBs
   0.30WAR0.21 to 0.39
4. Brandon ChatmanWR69 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 235th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
5. Braxton WoodsonQB28 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 207th of 231 QBs
   0.06WAR−0.04 to 0.16
6. Nathan KirkwoodPK10 plays · +0.256 pts/play · 92nd of 112 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 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 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, 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 Navy's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 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 USFQ4 0:06 4th & 11 at USF 34, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal6.5 pts
2. vs ARMYQ3 2:59 4th & 3 at ARMY 3, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.3 pts
3. vs UABQ4 12:23 4th & 4 at UAB 39, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
4. vs CINQ2 7:23 4th & 3 at NAVY 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
5. vs AFQ2 1:00 4th & 1 at NAVY 19, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs ARMYQ2 12:37 4th & 1 at NAVY 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
7. vs ARMYQ4 6:37 4th & 8 at ARMY 8, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs RICEQ4 3:07 4th & 3 at NAVY 45, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

11th of 136 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

   VMI
2. W

   UAB
3. W

   TLSA
4. W

   RICE
5. W

   AF
6. W

   TEM
7. W

   FAU
8. L

   UNT
9. L

   ND
10. W

    USF
11. W

    MEM
12. W

    ARMY
13. W

    CIN

What moved it, 2025

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+2.34
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.56

Game by game

• VMIW 52-7 vs VMI99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UABW 38-24 vs UAB93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• TLSAW 42-23 at TLSA83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• RICEW 21-13 vs RICE85% → 98%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• AFW 34-31 vs AF84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position +1
• TEMW 32-31 at TEM79% → 81%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +29, Clock +3
• FAUW 42-32 vs FAU85% → 96%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position +1
• UNTL 17-31 at UNT36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• NDL 10-49 at ND3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• USFW 41-38 vs USF28% → 88%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +1
• MEMW 28-17 at MEM43% → 97%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ARMYW 17-16 vs ARMY73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• CINW 35-13 vs CIN64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2

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.