Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0729th
  Defense0.0087th
• 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.
  Offense43.4%49th
  Defense36.7%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.034th
  Defense+1.367th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.057th
  Defense−0.0588th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2060th
  Defense+0.0583rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.7%65th
  Defense40.7%93rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%9th
  Defense29.9%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.567th
  Defense2.3494th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%19th
  Defense23.2%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%77th
  Defense19.8%89th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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 Troy 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
   APSU
2. L
   CLEM
3. W
   USM
4. W
   NMSU
5. W
   IDHO
6. W
   GAST
7. W
   USA
8. W
   MASS
9. W
   APP
10. L
    ARST
11. W
    TXST
12. L
    GASO
13. W
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2016

1. Brandon SilversQB316 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 58th of 218 QBs
   1.29WAR0.76 to 1.87
2. Jordan ChunnRB219 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 50th of 347 RBs
   0.52WAR0.28 to 0.75
3. Ryan KayPK67 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 1st of 116 kickers
   0.30WAR0.20 to 0.41
4. Emanuel ThompsonWR67 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 112th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
5. Deondre DouglasWR55 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 178th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. John JohnsonWR14 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 375th of 417 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
7. Josh AndersonRB11 plays · +0.011 pts/play · 296th of 347 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.02

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 Troy'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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  390390100th of 128Roster talent: 390, 100th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  100100119th of 128Recruiting: 100, 119th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%93rd of 128Returning production: 54%, 93rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.1+1.163rd of 128SP+ rating: +1.1, 63rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 Troy'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 0.17 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 USMQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at USM 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. vs OHIOQ4 13:46 4th & 2 at OHIO 44, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs MASSQ3 1:50 4th & 3 at MASS 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at GASOQ4 0:22 4th & 8 at GASO 9, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
5. at USAQ2 11:59 4th & 3 at USA 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at USMQ3 14:38 4th & 3 at TROY 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs GASTQ4 12:12 4th & 1 at TROY 24, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs OHIOQ2 9:35 4th & 3 at OHIO 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

51st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Troy's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 11 of 13 games; 2 have no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   APSU
2. L

   CLEM
3. W

   USM
4. W

   NMSU
5. W

   IDHO
6. W

   GAST
7. W

   USA
8. W

   MASS
9. W

   APP
10. L

    ARST
11. W

    TXST
12. L

    GASO
13. W

    OHIO

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Troy'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+0.63
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.46

Game by game

• APSUW 57-17 vs APSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• CLEML 24-30 at CLEM2% → 3%Before kickoff −48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −6
• USMW 37-31 at USM21% → 81%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −6
• NMSUW 52-6 vs NMSU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• GASTW 31-21 vs GAST87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• USAW 28-21 at USA71% → 91%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• MASSW 52-31 vs MASS93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• ARSTL 3-35 vs ARST74% → 0%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −67, Clock −2
• TXSTW 40-7 at TXST95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• GASOL 24-28 at GASO67% → 14%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• OHIOW 28-23 vs OHIO65% → 95%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from Troy's side.

Closest call

USA 24-31 TROY (2021) - Troy dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.