Old Dominion

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0731st
  Defense+0.1919th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%50th
  Defense45.1%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2044th
  Defense+1.3512th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0226th
  Defense+0.1712th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1339th
  Defense+0.2229th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%57th
  Defense48.5%40th
• 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%49th
  Defense37.1%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6319th
  Defense3.1019th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.5%20th
  Defense18.7%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%31st
  Defense14.9%28th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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. L
   LIB
2. L
   FIU
3. L
   CLT
4. W
   VT
5. L
   ECU
6. L
   FAU
7. L
   MRSH
8. W
   WKU
9. L
   MTSU
10. W
    UNT
11. W
    VMI
12. L
    RICE

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

Players, 2018

1. Blake LaRussaQB372 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 50th of 225 QBs
   1.52WAR0.90 to 2.14
2. Kesean StrongRB114 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 146th of 351 RBs
   0.29WAR0.23 to 0.36
3. Jonathan DuhartWR107 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 22nd of 434 WRs
   0.26WAR0.08 to 0.43
4. Jeremy CoxRB93 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 191st of 351 RBs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.31
5. Travis FulghamWR89 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 28th of 434 WRs
   0.23WAR0.10 to 0.35
6. Nick RicePK17 plays · +0.364 pts/play · 43rd of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Bailey CateP49 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 31st of 91 punters
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17
8. Steven WilliamsLB19 plays · +0.211 pts/play
   0.08WAR0.06 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 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  333333121st of 130Roster talent: 333, 121st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  107107121st of 130Recruiting: 107, 121st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%50th of 129Returning production: 72%, 50th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.1−14.1109th of 130SP+ rating: −14.1, 109th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.21 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 ECUQ4 5:22 4th & 1 at ODU 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.0 pts
2. vs FIUQ4 6:15 4th & 9 at FIU 10, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.5 pts
3. vs VTQ3 1:56 4th & 2 at ODU 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at LIBQ3 14:55 4th & 2 at ODU 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at FAUQ3 5:47 4th & 1 at ODU 42, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at LIBQ3 10:54 4th & 9 at LIB 35, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at RICEQ3 13:36 4th & 3 at ODU 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs FIUQ1 2:34 4th & 1 at ODU 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

109th of 130 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. L

   LIB
2. L

   FIU
3. L

   CLT
4. W

   VT
5. L

   ECU
6. L

   FAU
7. L

   MRSH
8. W

   WKU
9. L

   MTSU
10. W

    UNT
11. W

    VMI
12. L

    RICE

What moved it, 2018

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−1.81
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.90

Game by game

• LIBL 10-52 at LIB63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −56, Timeouts +1
• FIUL 20-28 vs FIU43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• CLTL 25-28 at CLT47% → 11%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• VTW 49-35 vs VT3% → 98%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +95: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• ECUL 35-37 at ECU33% → 16%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position −3
• FAUL 33-52 at FAU18% → 2%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• MRSHL 20-42 vs MRSH40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• WKUW 37-34 at WKU40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• MTSUL 17-51 vs MTSU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• UNTW 34-31 vs UNT16% → 85%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• VMIW 77-14 vs VMI98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• RICEL 13-27 at RICE69% → 1%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −48, 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.