Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1355th
  Defense−0.0697th
• 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.
  Offense41.3%42nd
  Defense38.3%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3277th
  Defense+1.1683rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0634th
  Defense−0.1398th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2450th
  Defense+0.0692nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%48th
  Defense43.3%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%43rd
  Defense28.7%68th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9731st
  Defense2.7687th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%31st
  Defense21.7%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%38th
  Defense19.4%88th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   SFA
2. L
   KSU
3. L
   JMU
4. W
   WKU
5. W
   GAST
6. W
   ARST
7. W
   ARMY
8. W
   TXST
9. W
   USA
10. W
    ULM
11. W
    UL
12. W
    USM
13. W
    APP
14. L
    DUKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2023

1. Gunnar WatsonQB429 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 28th of 250 QBs
   1.89WAR0.96 to 2.80
2. Kimani VidalRB235 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 15th of 383 RBs
   0.52WAR0.30 to 0.72
3. Chris LewisWR41 plays · +0.300 pts/play · 52nd of 457 WRs
   0.23WAR0.11 to 0.35
4. Deshon StoudemireWR46 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 153rd of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.23
5. Scott Taylor RenfroePK19 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 42nd of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Robert ColeP42 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 51st of 103 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
7. Jabre BarberWR86 plays · +0.040 pts/play · 253rd of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.12 to 0.24
8. Asa MartinRB27 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 296th of 383 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  454454101st of 130Roster talent: 454, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125108th of 130Recruiting: 125, 108th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%59th of 128Returning production: 56%, 59th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.8+9.826th of 130SP+ rating: +9.8, 26th 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, 2023

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.24 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 JMUQ4 0:34 4th & 15 at JMU 43, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−9.9 pts
2. vs WKUQ4 11:52 4th & 1 at TROY 19, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
3. vs ARSTQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at ARST 11, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs ULQ2 9:49 4th & 1 at TROY 10, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at ARMYQ3 10:09 4th & 3 at ARMY 26, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at KSUQ3 12:55 4th & 1 at TROY 34, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at GASTQ2 4:11 4th & 2 at TROY 43, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at ARMYQ3 3:35 4th & 12 at ARMY 36, up 19Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

25th of 133 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

   SFA
2. L

   KSU
3. L

   JMU
4. W

   WKU
5. W

   GAST
6. W

   ARST
7. W

   ARMY
8. W

   TXST
9. W

   USA
10. W

    ULM
11. W

    UL
12. W

    USM
13. W

    APP
14. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2023

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+1.93
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.05
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.72

Game by game

• SFAW 48-30 vs SFA96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• KSUL 13-42 at KSU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• JMUL 14-16 vs JMU68% → 6%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• WKUW 27-24 vs WKU63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• GASTW 28-7 at GAST48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +53, Clock +2
• ARSTW 37-3 vs ARST86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• ARMYW 19-0 at ARMY69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• TXSTW 31-13 at TXST67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• USAW 28-10 vs USA63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• ULMW 45-14 at ULM94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• ULW 31-24 vs UL84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +2
• USMW 35-17 at USM86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• APPW 49-23 vs APP66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• DUKEL 10-17 at DUKE61% → 3%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −42, 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.