Pittsburgh

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+0.1048th
  Defense−0.0491st
• 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.
  Offense40.6%31st
  Defense35.1%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3792nd
  Defense+1.3412th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0218th
  Defense−0.1196th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2467th
  Defense+0.0388th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%27th
  Defense40.6%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.9%54th
  Defense25.5%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6310th
  Defense2.3496th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.4%5th
  Defense25.3%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%12th
  Defense18.9%91st

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 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
   DUQ
2. W
   CMU
3. L
   WVU
4. L
   LOU
5. W
   BC
6. W
   FSU
7. W
   SYR
8. W
   NCSU
9. W
   STAN
10. L
    ND
11. W
    GT
12. L
    MIA
13. L
    ECU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2025

1. Mason HeintschelQB337 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 57th of 231 QBs
   1.33WAR0.62 to 1.93
2. Eli HolsteinQB111 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 146th of 231 QBs
   0.37WAR0.16 to 0.58
3. Desmond ReidRB69 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 90th of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.30
4. Kenny JohnsonWR69 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 59th of 451 WRs
   0.21WAR0.06 to 0.35
5. Ja'Kyrian TurnerRB140 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 110th of 365 RBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.29
6. Raphael Williams Jr.WR70 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 178th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.05 to 0.24
7. Juelz GoffRB54 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 234th of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. Trey ButkowskiPK16 plays · +0.310 pts/play · 45th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 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 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68168156th of 134Roster talent: 681, 56th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818856th of 134Recruiting: 188, 56th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%24th of 132Returning production: 59%, 24th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.4+8.436th of 134SP+ rating: +8.4, 36th 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 Pittsburgh's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.13 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 1:23 4th & 3 at ECU 3, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at GTQ4 7:01 4th & 9 at PITT 41, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.4 pts
3. at ECUQ2 3:05 4th & 1 at PITT 28, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at WVUQ2 10:29 4th & 1 at PITT 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at FSUQ4 7:15 4th & 4 at FSU 16, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at GTQ3 10:59 4th & 3 at PITT 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at WVUQ4 2:47 4th & 9 at WVU 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs CMUQ3 10:19 4th & 2 at PITT 18, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

69th of 136 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

   DUQ
2. W

   CMU
3. L

   WVU
4. L

   LOU
5. W

   BC
6. W

   FSU
7. W

   SYR
8. W

   NCSU
9. W

   STAN
10. L

    ND
11. W

    GT
12. L

    MIA
13. L

    ECU

What moved it, 2025

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+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.90

Game by game

• DUQW 61-9 vs DUQ99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CMUW 45-17 vs CMU94% → 49%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −7, Clock −2
• WVUL 24-31 at WVU71% → 50%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −21: Scoreboard +12, Clock +3
• LOUL 27-34 vs LOU45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• BCW 48-7 vs BC68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• FSUW 34-31 at FSU25% → 95%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• SYRW 30-13 at SYR77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• NCSUW 53-34 vs NCSU62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• STANW 35-20 at STAN84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• NDL 15-37 vs ND20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• GTW 42-28 at GT39% → 98%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• MIAL 7-38 vs MIA35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• ECUL 17-23 at ECU77% → 9%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −3

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.