Old Dominion

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.101st
  Defense+0.1055th
• 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.
  Offense35.0%2nd
  Defense43.2%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1739th
  Defense+1.1958th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0120th
  Defense−0.0791st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.171st
  Defense+0.339th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.0%1st
  Defense46.2%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.6%11th
  Defense37.4%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.465th
  Defense2.4293rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.9%5th
  Defense27.4%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense25.6%4th
  Defense21.6%71st

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, 2019

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
   NORF
2. L
   VT
3. L
   UVA
4. L
   ECU
5. L
   WKU
6. L
   MRSH
7. L
   UAB
8. L
   FAU
9. L
   FIU
10. L
    UTSA
11. L
    MTSU
12. L
    CLT

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

Players, 2019

1. Stone SmarttQB183 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 125th of 228 QBs
   0.50WAR0.07 to 0.89
2. Hayden WolffQB121 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 145th of 228 QBs
   0.38WAR0.21 to 0.56
3. Kesean StrongRB91 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 211th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
4. Elijah DavisRB44 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 238th of 349 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
5. Nick RicePK14 plays · +0.457 pts/play · 57th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. Bailey CateP51 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 13th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.19
7. Messiah deWeaverQB68 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 208th of 228 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.09 to 0.25
8. Aaron MooreWR35 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 258th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  375375111th of 130Roster talent: 375, 111th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111123rd of 130Recruiting: 111, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%121st of 130Returning production: 28%, 121st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −24.4−24.4125th of 130SP+ rating: −24.4, 125th 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, 2019

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 0.05 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 ECUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at ODU 31, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at UVAQ3 3:14 4th & 2 at ODU 28, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at FIUQ4 10:24 4th & 5 at FIU 5, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at VTQ4 2:41 4th & 18 at VT 24, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs UTSAQ4 12:54 4th & 4 at ODU 48, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs NORFQ2 8:17 4th & 1 at ODU 48, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at UVAQ2 2:08 4th & 2 at ODU 26, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at MTSUQ4 5:44 4th & 10 at MTSU 20, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

122nd 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. W

   NORF
2. L

   VT
3. L

   UVA
4. L

   ECU
5. L

   WKU
6. L

   MRSH
7. L

   UAB
8. L

   FAU
9. L

   FIU
10. L

    UTSA
11. L

    MTSU
12. L

    CLT

What moved it, 2019

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−2.48
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• NORFW 24-21 vs NORF94% → 94%Before kickoff +44 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• VTL 17-31 at VT3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7
• UVAL 17-28 at UVA4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −9
• ECUL 21-24 vs ECU51% → 7%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• WKUL 3-20 vs WKU36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• MRSHL 17-31 at MRSH12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −17
• UABL 14-38 at UAB12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• FAUL 3-41 vs FAU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• FIUL 17-24 at FIU10% → 3%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −15
• UTSAL 23-24 vs UTSA57% → 25%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Clock −5
• MTSUL 17-38 at MTSU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• CLTL 22-38 vs CLT21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1

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.