Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2082nd
  Defense+0.1822nd
• 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.
  Offense48.2%88th
  Defense45.5%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2052nd
  Defense+1.3013th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1268th
  Defense+0.1325th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2976th
  Defense+0.2526th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.2%80th
  Defense50.5%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.9%91st
  Defense34.4%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0567th
  Defense2.9640th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%81st
  Defense18.0%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%56th
  Defense16.8%14th

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, 2019

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
   CAM
2. L
   USM
3. W
   AKR
4. L
   ARST
5. L
   MIZ
6. W
   USA
7. L
   GAST
8. L
   CCU
9. W
   GASO
10. W
    TXST
11. L
    UL
12. L
    APP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2019

1. Kaleb BarkerQB433 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 26th of 228 QBs
   1.75WAR1.06 to 2.40
2. DK BillingsleyRB156 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 52nd of 349 RBs
   0.52WAR0.42 to 0.62
3. Tyler SumpterPK48 plays · +0.274 pts/play · 3rd of 114 kickers
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.31
4. Kaylon GeigerWR75 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 57th of 439 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.32
5. Reggie ToddWR47 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 161st of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
6. Khalil McClainWR51 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 164th of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Luke WhittemoreWR41 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 243rd of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Tray EaffordWR20 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 311th of 439 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  389389108th of 130Roster talent: 389, 108th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13613689th of 130Recruiting: 136, 89th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%92nd of 130Returning production: 47%, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.4−4.484th of 130SP+ rating: −4.4, 84th 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, 2019

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 0.02 of the 0.06 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. vs ARSTQ3 1:47 4th & 11 at ARST 44, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
2. at GASTQ2 8:35 4th & 15 at GAST 34, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
3. at CCUQ4 2:29 4th & 2 at TROY 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at CCUQ2 7:02 4th & 4 at TROY 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at GASTQ3 15:00 4th & 11 at GAST 32, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs ARSTQ1 8:42 4th & 3 at ARST 3, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs USAQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at USA 12, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs CAMQ2 5:31 4th & 2 at CAM 8, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

115th 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. W

   CAM
2. L

   USM
3. W

   AKR
4. L

   ARST
5. L

   MIZ
6. W

   USA
7. L

   GAST
8. L

   CCU
9. W

   GASO
10. W

    TXST
11. L

    UL
12. L

    APP

What moved it, 2019

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−0.72
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.43

Game by game

• CAMW 43-14 vs CAM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• USML 42-47 vs USM55% → 6%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• AKRW 35-7 at AKR88% → 88%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +24
• ARSTL 43-50 vs ARST72% → 13%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• MIZL 10-42 at MIZ6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• USAW 37-13 vs USA89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16
• GASTL 33-52 at GAST45% → 1%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1
• CCUL 35-36 at CCU56% → 31%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −5, Timeouts −3
• GASOW 49-28 vs GASO45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts −1
• TXSTW 63-27 at TXST72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34
• ULL 3-53 at UL19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• APPL 13-48 vs APP22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1

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.