Try the model

The Citadel

Bulldogs · Southern · FCS
0-32020 · vs FBS opponents

Next game

TA&M
at Texas A&M
Sat, Oct 17 · 1:00 PM EDT
TA&M favored by 45.5

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2020
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense−2.45
Defense−0.14allowed
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense−1.49
Defense+0.45allowed
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense−2.421.5 pts/trip
Defense−0.633.7 pts/trip allowed
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense1.11
Defense1.50opponents

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 The Citadel 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.

Game by game
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

Bars above the line: better than expected for The Citadel.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2020
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

22 of 3171%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

0.4 ptsper game
0.01 expected wins over 3 games
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

2 of 2100%

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 The Citadel's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.01 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right.

Costliest calls against the numbers
  1. at ARMYQ3 9:28 4th & 3 at ARMY 30, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
  2. at ARMYQ4 13:29 4th & 10 at ARMY 32, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
  3. at ARMYQ2 10:19 4th & 3 at CIT 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
  4. at CLEMQ2 0:32 4th & 9 at CLEM 38, down 49Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
  5. at USFQ2 0:45 4th & 3 at USF 18, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
  6. at ARMYQ1 7:23 4th & 3 at ARMY 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
  7. at ARMYQ1 0:00 4th & 4 at ARMY 22, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
  8. at CLEMQ4 0:45 4th & 1 at CIT 36, down 49Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts
Every call this season (31)
Wk 2 · at USF · L 6-279 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 4:074th & 17 at USF 28, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 11:084th & 13 at USF 24, down 4 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 6:524th & 16 at CIT 10, down 1 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 6:524th & 10 at CIT 34, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 0:454th & 3 at USF 18, down 14 · Went for itClose call
  6. Q3 13:194th & 8 at CIT 39, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 5:224th & 1 at CIT 19, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q3 5:224th & 18 at CIT 13, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 13:444th & 14 at USF 47, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q4 6:554th & 10 at USF 48, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 3 · at CLEM · L 0-499 of 12 agreed
  1. Q1 10:104th & 2 at CIT 33, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 14:134th & 14 at CIT 12, down 28 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 10:594th & 11 at CIT 24, down 35 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 8:314th & 22 at CIT 13, down 42 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 0:324th & 9 at CLEM 38, down 49 · PuntedClose call
  6. Q3 12:294th & 8 at CIT 44, down 49 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 6:484th & 5 at CIT 37, down 49 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 5:434th & 11 at CLEM 44, down 49 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q3 2:234th & 9 at CIT 20, down 49 · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q4 12:534th & 10 at CLEM 30, down 49 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  11. Q4 7:104th & 3 at CIT 42, down 49 · Went for itAgreed
  12. Q4 0:454th & 1 at CIT 36, down 49 · Went for itClose call
Wk 6 · at ARMY · L 9-144 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 12:474th & 7 at CIT 33, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 7:234th & 3 at ARMY 48, tied · PuntedClose call
  3. Q1 0:004th & 4 at ARMY 22, tied · Kicked a field goalClose call
  4. Q2 10:194th & 3 at CIT 43, up 3 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 14:554th & 1 at ARMY 43, down 4 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q3 9:284th & 3 at ARMY 30, down 4 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  7. Q3 2:254th & 3 at CIT 32, down 11 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 13:294th & 10 at ARMY 32, down 11 · Went for itClose call
  9. Q4 13:294th & 5 at ARMY 37, down 11 · Went for itAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

1 of 1100%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0 ptsthis season
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Went for two 1 time, converted 0

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2020
0-3vs. 0.2 expected−0.2 wins

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

  1. L
    USF
  2. L
    CLEM
  3. L
    ARMY
What moved it, 2020
−1.3 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
−0.1 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

Every game starts at The Citadel'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−0.28
  • Timeouts−0.01
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.15
Game by game

Points of win probability, from The Citadel's side.

Closest call

CIT 27-24 GT (2019) - The Citadel dropped to a 4.5% win probability before pulling it out.

Season arc, 2020

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is The Citadel's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2020

The largest single-play change in The Citadel's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

The Citadel's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

The Citadel's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

The Citadel's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$87.20+2.3% over the past year
Series & rivalries

The Citadel's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com