Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0614th
  Defense+0.0485th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%18th
  Defense38.3%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3166th
  Defense+1.2943rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.035th
  Defense+0.0377th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1629th
  Defense+0.1278th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.9%12th
  Defense45.3%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%48th
  Defense24.5%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.664th
  Defense2.8274th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%15th
  Defense18.5%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%17th
  Defense18.3%79th

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, 2021

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
   SOU
2. L
   LIB
3. W
   USM
4. L
   ULM
5. L
   SC
6. W
   GASO
7. W
   TXST
8. L
   CCU
9. W
   USA
10. L
    UL
11. L
    APP
12. L
    GAST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2021

1. Gunnar WatsonQB217 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 99th of 219 QBs
   0.85WAR0.47 to 1.26
2. Taylor PowellQB151 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 120th of 219 QBs
   0.55WAR0.28 to 0.82
3. Kimani VidalRB146 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 99th of 387 RBs
   0.41WAR0.26 to 0.53
4. B.J. SmithRB84 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 209th of 387 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.29
5. Tez JohnsonWR64 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 58th of 474 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
6. Luke MagliozziP53 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 28th of 101 punters
   0.15WAR0.02 to 0.29
7. Jamontez WoodsRB42 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 255th of 387 RBs
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.17
8. Reggie ToddWR25 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 299th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44944991st of 130Roster talent: 449, 91st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14614688th of 130Recruiting: 146, 88th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%97th of 128Returning production: 54%, 97th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.5−6.594th of 130SP+ rating: −6.5, 94th 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, 2021

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 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 CCUQ4 13:11 4th & 1 at TROY 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. at TXSTQ4 9:55 4th & 4 at TROY 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at USMQ2 9:47 4th & 15 at USM 18, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs APPQ2 6:04 4th & 1 at TROY 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at CCUQ4 9:08 4th & 1 at TROY 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs ULQ2 4:20 4th & 2 at UL 29, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at CCUQ2 3:11 4th & 6 at CCU 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs LIBQ2 5:39 4th & 1 at TROY 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

106th 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

   SOU
2. L

   LIB
3. W

   USM
4. L

   ULM
5. L

   SC
6. W

   GASO
7. W

   TXST
8. L

   CCU
9. W

   USA
10. L

    UL
11. L

    APP
12. L

    GAST

What moved it, 2021

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−2.02
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.33

Game by game

• SOUW 55-3 vs SOU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• LIBL 13-21 vs LIB39% → 9%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• USMW 21-9 at USM79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• ULML 16-29 at ULM93% → 2%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −90: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position +3
• SCL 14-23 at SC32% → 4%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −1
• GASOW 27-24 vs GASO69% → 86%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• TXSTW 31-28 at TXST72% → 95%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• CCUL 28-35 at CCU12% → 3%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• USAW 31-24 vs USA60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• ULL 21-35 vs UL32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −42, Clock −1
• APPL 7-45 vs APP25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• GASTL 10-37 at GAST29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position +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.