Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1361st
  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.
  Offense44.5%64th
  Defense38.3%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2469th
  Defense+1.1954th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0339th
  Defense−0.1399th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2369th
  Defense−0.0189th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%77th
  Defense42.9%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.1%44th
  Defense30.3%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6419th
  Defense2.3591st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%72nd
  Defense26.8%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%80th
  Defense21.2%94th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   BOIS
2. W
   ALST
3. W
   NMSU
4. W
   AKR
5. W
   LSU
6. L
   USA
7. W
   GAST
8. W
   GASO
9. W
   IDHO
10. W
    CCU
11. W
    TXST
12. W
    ARST
13. W
    UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2017

1. Brandon SilversQB342 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 67th of 226 QBs
   1.14WAR0.59 to 1.70
2. Jordan ChunnRB141 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 135th of 352 RBs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.36
3. Josh AndersonRB64 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 193rd of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
4. Deondre DouglasWR49 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 141st of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
5. Damion WillisWR35 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 223rd of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Tevaris McCormickWR31 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 311th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
7. Emanuel ThompsonWR39 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 319th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. John JohnsonWR23 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 357th of 426 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  35235299th of 130Roster talent: 352, 99th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  106106117th of 130Recruiting: 106, 117th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  99%99%3rd of 128Returning production: 99%, 3rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.6+1.665th of 128SP+ rating: +1.6, 65th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.25 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 ARSTQ4 1:23 4th & 5 at ARST 38, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.3 pts
2. vs USAQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at USA 10, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at ARSTQ4 13:34 4th & 2 at ARST 21, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs AKRQ4 10:59 4th & 2 at TROY 20, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at UNTQ3 2:40 4th & 2 at TROY 29, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at NMSUQ2 0:02 4th & 16 at NMSU 40, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
7. vs AKRQ3 8:47 4th & 13 at AKR 32, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at ARSTQ3 9:59 4th & 3 at ARST 20, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

24th of 130 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 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   BOIS
2. W

   ALST
3. W

   NMSU
4. W

   AKR
5. W

   LSU
6. L

   USA
7. W

   GAST
8. W

   GASO
9. W

   IDHO
10. W

    CCU
11. W

    TXST
12. W

    ARST
13. W

    UNT

What moved it, 2017

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+1.48
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.64

Game by game

• BOISL 13-24 at BOIS26% → 2%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• ALSTW 34-7 vs ALST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NMSUW 27-24 at NMSU76% → 93%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• AKRW 22-17 vs AKR90% → 95%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +17
• LSUW 24-21 at LSU9% → 94%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +86: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• USAL 8-19 vs USA90% → 4%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• GASOW 38-16 vs GASO95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• IDHOW 24-21 vs IDHO90% → 95%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +16
• CCUW 42-17 at CCU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• TXSTW 62-9 vs TXST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• ARSTW 32-25 at ARST50% → 88%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• UNTW 50-30 at UNT71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +36, Clock +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.