Old Dominion

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0839th
  Defense+0.1332nd
• 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.
  Offense38.3%13th
  Defense45.3%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3090th
  Defense+1.1565th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1169th
  Defense+0.1418th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0728th
  Defense+0.1450th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%15th
  Defense49.4%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.4%24th
  Defense35.6%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9767th
  Defense3.2111th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%39th
  Defense16.6%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense1.0%1st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Old Dominion 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
   EMU
2. W
   NORF
3. L
   NCSU
4. L
   APP
5. L
   MRSH
6. W
   CLT
7. L
   FIU
8. L
   WKU
9. W
   UTSA
10. W
    UTEP
11. L
    USM
12. L
    FAU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Old Dominion.

Players, 2015

1. David WashingtonQB206 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 96th of 205 QBs
   0.98WAR0.71 to 1.25
2. Shuler BentleyQB228 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 133rd of 205 QBs
   0.51WAR0.14 to 0.92
3. Ray LawryRB157 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 29th of 333 RBs
   0.44WAR0.29 to 0.59
4. Jonathan DuhartWR56 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 36th of 411 WRs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.36
5. Zach PascalWR96 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 76th of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.05 to 0.36
6. Jeremy CoxRB72 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 205th of 333 RBs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Chris KirtleyPK13 plays · +0.401 pts/play · 75th of 115 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. Satchel ZifferPK51 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 84th of 115 kickers
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.17

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 Old Dominion'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  320320117th of 128Roster talent: 320, 117th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12612686th of 128Recruiting: 126, 86th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%101st of 127Returning production: 43%, 101st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.8−14.8112th of 128SP+ rating: −14.8, 112th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Old Dominion's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 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 FAUQ4 9:15 4th & 1 at ODU 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. at EMUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at EMU 2, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs CLTQ2 6:30 4th & 1 at ODU 22, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at EMUQ4 14:05 4th & 5 at EMU 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs CLTQ3 3:09 4th & 4 at CLT 28, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs CLTQ4 10:55 4th & 3 at CLT 18, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs UTEPQ3 11:15 4th & 2 at ODU 36, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs NORFQ4 7:01 4th & 3 at NORF 8, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

28th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   EMU
2. W

   NORF
3. L

   NCSU
4. L

   APP
5. L

   MRSH
6. W

   CLT
7. L

   FIU
8. L

   WKU
9. W

   UTSA
10. W

    UTEP
11. L

    USM
12. L

    FAU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Old Dominion'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+0.37
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• EMUW 38-34 at EMU29% → 95%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• NORFW 24-10 vs NORF96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts +1
• NCSUL 14-38 vs NCSU11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19
• APPL 0-49 vs APP27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1
• MRSHL 7-27 at MRSH11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• CLTW 37-34 vs CLT74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• FIUL 12-41 at FIU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −17
• WKUL 30-55 vs WKU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• UTSAW 36-31 at UTSA20% → 93%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• UTEPW 31-21 vs UTEP59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• USML 31-56 at USM9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts +1
• FAUL 31-33 vs FAU31% → 10%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Old Dominion's side.

Closest call

VT 35-49 ODU (2018) - Old Dominion dropped to a 3.2% win probability before pulling it out.