Pittsburgh

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0935th
  Defense+0.0672nd
• 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.
  Offense41.6%38th
  Defense38.1%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3585th
  Defense+1.419th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1676th
  Defense−0.0386th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0418th
  Defense+0.1552nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%21st
  Defense42.2%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%79th
  Defense31.3%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1061st
  Defense2.3699th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%47th
  Defense25.1%97th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.9%4th
  Defense19.6%86th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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 Pittsburgh 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
   KENT
2. W
   CIN
3. W
   WVU
4. W
   YSU
5. W
   UNC
6. W
   CAL
7. W
   SYR
8. L
   SMU
9. L
   UVA
10. L
    CLEM
11. L
    LOU
12. L
    BC
13. L
    TOL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2024

1. Eli HolsteinQB287 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 93rd of 232 QBs
   0.97WAR0.41 to 1.49
2. Desmond ReidRB210 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 5th of 373 RBs
   0.67WAR0.50 to 0.83
3. Nate YarnellQB135 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 139th of 232 QBs
   0.42WAR0.15 to 0.66
4. Konata MumpfieldWR44 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 117th of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR0.01 to 0.21
5. Ben SaulsPK16 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 18th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Kenny JohnsonWR39 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 191st of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.15
7. Gavin BartholomewTE30 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 42nd of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.16
8. Daejon ReynoldsWR13 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 233rd of 452 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08

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 Pittsburgh'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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71471443rd of 131Roster talent: 714, 43rd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19119147th of 131Recruiting: 191, 47th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%47th of 130Returning production: 56%, 47th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.9+4.949th of 131SP+ rating: +4.9, 49th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 Pittsburgh's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 TOLQ4 0:00 4th & 9 at PITT 49, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−3.7 pts
2. vs CALQ4 13:34 4th & 2 at PITT 30, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at LOUQ2 2:17 4th & 1 at PITT 36, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at BCQ1 0:18 4th & 1 at PITT 30, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs CALQ2 4:41 4th & 1 at PITT 34, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at SMUQ3 13:34 4th & 10 at PITT 25, down 28Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at TOLQ2 8:44 4th & 3 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs UVAQ3 7:41 4th & 4 at UVA 27, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

73rd of 134 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   KENT
2. W

   CIN
3. W

   WVU
4. W

   YSU
5. W

   UNC
6. W

   CAL
7. W

   SYR
8. L

   SMU
9. L

   UVA
10. L

    CLEM
11. L

    LOU
12. L

    BC
13. L

    TOL

What moved it, 2024

Every game starts at Pittsburgh'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−0.11
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.34
• Timeouts+0.11
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.11

Game by game

• KENTW 55-24 vs KENT93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• CINW 28-27 at CIN52% → 79%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +4
• WVUW 38-34 vs WVU43% → 96%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• YSUW 73-17 vs YSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• UNCW 34-24 at UNC56% → 97%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• CALW 17-15 vs CAL61% → 93%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position +1
• SYRW 41-13 vs SYR64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36
• SMUL 25-48 at SMU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −33
• UVAL 19-24 vs UVA71% → 6%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• CLEML 20-24 vs CLEM18% → 14%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −6
• LOUL 9-37 at LOU36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +1
• BCL 23-34 at BC40% → 2%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• TOLL 46-48 at TOL69% → 2%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −67: Clock −36, Scoreboard −28

Points of win probability, from Pittsburgh's side.

Closest call

PITT 28-27 CIN (2024) - Pittsburgh dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.