Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1248th
  Defense+0.0474th
• 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%32nd
  Defense40.9%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2256th
  Defense+1.2146th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0642nd
  Defense−0.0994th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2053rd
  Defense+0.1939th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.4%64th
  Defense45.1%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.7%2nd
  Defense32.9%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7123rd
  Defense2.5884th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%52nd
  Defense23.3%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%60th
  Defense20.3%95th

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, 2018

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
   FAMU
3. W
   NEB
4. W
   ULM
5. W
   CCU
6. W
   GAST
7. L
   LIB
8. W
   USA
9. W
   UL
10. W
    GASO
11. W
    TXST
12. L
    APP
13. W
    BUF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2018

1. Sawyer SmithQB264 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 101st of 225 QBs
   0.82WAR0.39 to 1.27
2. Kaleb BarkerQB118 plays · +0.284 pts/play · 122nd of 225 QBs
   0.63WAR0.42 to 0.85
3. B.J. SmithRB189 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 43rd of 351 RBs
   0.57WAR0.40 to 0.74
4. Damion WillisWR63 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 23rd of 434 WRs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.33
5. Tyler SumpterPK64 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 1st of 112 kickers
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.33
6. Deondre DouglasWR46 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 174th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
7. Sidney DavisWR49 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 265th of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.12
8. Jabir Daughtry-FryeRB19 plays · +0.040 pts/play · 292nd of 351 RBs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  352352113th of 130Roster talent: 352, 113th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  124124102nd of 130Recruiting: 124, 102nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%101st of 129Returning production: 42%, 101st of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.6+2.662nd of 130SP+ rating: +2.6, 62nd of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.10 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 GASOQ3 6:40 4th & 3 at GASO 25, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. vs TXSTQ4 9:10 4th & 7 at TXST 39, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs BUFQ2 4:08 4th & 15 at BUF 35, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at ULMQ4 11:55 4th & 2 at TROY 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs ULQ2 3:11 4th & 2 at UL 25, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs TXSTQ2 1:06 4th & 1 at TROY 46, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at USAQ3 3:14 4th & 4 at TROY 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at USAQ3 12:00 4th & 2 at TROY 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

11th 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.

1. L

   BOIS
2. W

   FAMU
3. W

   NEB
4. W

   ULM
5. W

   CCU
6. W

   GAST
7. L

   LIB
8. W

   USA
9. W

   UL
10. W

    GASO
11. W

    TXST
12. L

    APP
13. W

    BUF

What moved it, 2018

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+2.27
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.40

Game by game

• BOISL 20-56 vs BOIS23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• FAMUW 59-7 vs FAMU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• NEBW 24-19 at NEB21% → 91%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +50, Possession & field position +2
• ULMW 35-27 at ULM57% → 98%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• CCUW 45-21 vs CCU82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +22
• GASTW 37-20 vs GAST85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• LIBL 16-22 at LIB76% → 10%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• USAW 38-17 at USA75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• ULW 26-16 vs UL66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• GASOW 35-21 at GASO53% → 98%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• TXSTW 12-7 vs TXST92% → 96%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• APPL 10-21 at APP23% → 3%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• BUFW 42-32 vs BUF42% → 97%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3

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.