Old Dominion

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+0.2080th
  Defense−0.0796th
• 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.
  Offense45.9%78th
  Defense39.3%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2767th
  Defense+1.0599th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1159th
  Defense−0.0590th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3587th
  Defense−0.0395th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.3%69th
  Defense45.3%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%84th
  Defense25.3%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1984th
  Defense2.9146th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%84th
  Defense20.7%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.8%67th
  Defense18.6%88th

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 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
   IU
2. W
   NCCU
3. W
   VT
4. W
   LIB
5. W
   CCU
6. L
   MRSH
7. L
   JMU
8. W
   APP
9. W
   ULM
10. W
    TROY
11. W
    GASO
12. W
    GAST
13. W
    USF

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

Players, 2025

1. Colton JosephQB278 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 39th of 231 QBs
   1.50WAR0.95 to 2.00
2. Tre' BrownWR46 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 77th of 451 WRs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.30
3. Devin RocheRB91 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 128th of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
4. Trequan JonesRB67 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 219th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
5. Ja'Cory ThomasWR48 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 217th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.01 to 0.17
6. Quinn HenicleQB48 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 199th of 231 QBs
   0.08WAR−0.07 to 0.22

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  477477122nd of 134Roster talent: 477, 122nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  119119117th of 134Recruiting: 119, 117th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%54th of 132Returning production: 41%, 54th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.9+5.948th of 134SP+ rating: +5.9, 48th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 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 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 0.04 of the 0.10 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 LIBQ3 5:43 4th & 1 at LIB 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at USFQ2 0:03 4th & 11 at USF 20, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
3. at USFQ4 5:54 4th & 3 at USF 18, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs GASTQ2 5:34 4th & 2 at GAST 2, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs LIBQ3 1:55 4th & 5 at LIB 34, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs GASTQ3 10:46 4th & 4 at GAST 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at USFQ2 11:22 4th & 3 at ODU 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at ULMQ2 0:39 4th & 15 at ULM 36, up 24Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

37th of 136 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

   IU
2. W

   NCCU
3. W

   VT
4. W

   LIB
5. W

   CCU
6. L

   MRSH
7. L

   JMU
8. W

   APP
9. W

   ULM
10. W

    TROY
11. W

    GASO
12. W

    GAST
13. W

    USF

What moved it, 2025

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+1.38
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts+0.23
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.65

Game by game

• IUL 14-27 at IU7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• NCCUW 54-6 vs NCCU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• VTW 45-26 at VT33% → 99%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• LIBW 21-7 vs LIB84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• CCUW 47-7 vs CCU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• MRSHL 24-48 at MRSH86% → 1%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −86: Scoreboard −82, Timeouts +20
• JMUL 27-63 at JMU40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −41, Clock +1
• APPW 24-21 vs APP83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• ULMW 31-6 at ULM86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21
• TROYW 33-0 vs TROY75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27
• GASOW 45-10 at GASO73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• GASTW 27-10 vs GAST95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• USFW 24-10 at USF39% → 98%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3

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.