Old Dominion

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1983rd
  Defense+0.0956th
• 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.
  Offense44.4%58th
  Defense43.9%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3292nd
  Defense+1.2135th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1883rd
  Defense+0.0749th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2368th
  Defense+0.1457th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%76th
  Defense49.3%39th
• 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%13th
  Defense32.0%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1877th
  Defense3.0539th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%55th
  Defense16.5%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.0%96th
  Defense17.5%69th

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, 2016

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

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

Players, 2016

1. David WashingtonQB286 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 73rd of 218 QBs
   1.17WAR0.77 to 1.63
2. Ray LawryRB147 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 37th of 347 RBs
   0.57WAR0.38 to 0.76
3. Jonathan DuhartWR53 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 37th of 417 WRs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.34
4. Zach PascalWR88 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 42nd of 417 WRs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.37
5. Jeremy CoxRB85 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 160th of 347 RBs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.31
6. Travis FulghamWR33 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 263rd of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Melvin VaughnTE19 plays · +0.014 pts/play · 104th of 195 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.03
8. Josh MarrinerRB1 plays · +0.020 pts/play · 296th of 347 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  347347115th of 128Roster talent: 347, 115th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11911998th of 128Recruiting: 119, 98th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  97%97%8th of 128Returning production: 97%, 8th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.7−0.769th of 128SP+ rating: −0.7, 69th 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, 2016

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.11 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 MRSHQ2 0:53 4th & 21 at MRSH 31, up 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
2. at UTEPQ2 12:31 4th & 1 at ODU 20, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs MASSQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at ODU 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at FAUQ4 10:43 4th & 4 at FAU 37, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at NCSUQ3 13:18 4th & 7 at ODU 32, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at APPQ3 14:53 4th & 9 at APP 15, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs UTSAQ4 10:57 4th & 5 at UTSA 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs MRSHQ1 4:12 4th & 2 at ODU 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

8th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   HAMP
2. L

   APP
3. L

   NCSU
4. W

   UTSA
5. W

   CLT
6. W

   MASS
7. L

   WKU
8. W

   UTEP
9. W

   MRSH
10. W

    USM
11. W

    FAU
12. W

    FIU
13. W

    EMU

What moved it, 2016

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+2.13
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.26

Game by game

• HAMPW 54-21 vs HAMP96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• APPL 7-31 at APP11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• NCSUL 22-49 at NCSU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• UTSAW 33-19 vs UTSA57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• MASSW 36-16 vs MASS75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27
• WKUL 24-59 at WKU23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
• UTEPW 31-21 at UTEP65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• MRSHW 38-14 vs MRSH69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −1
• USMW 51-35 vs USM58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• FAUW 42-24 at FAU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• FIUW 42-28 vs FIU83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• EMUW 24-20 vs EMU66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +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.