Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1350th
  Defense+0.1435th
• 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.
  Offense44.3%64th
  Defense43.3%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2334th
  Defense+1.2362nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0738th
  Defense+0.0944th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2470th
  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.
  Offense48.6%54th
  Defense48.6%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%77th
  Defense30.5%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8831st
  Defense2.9950th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%31st
  Defense16.7%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%46th
  Defense16.6%55th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   NEV
2. L
   MEM
3. L
   IOWA
4. W
   FAMU
5. L
   ULM
6. L
   TXST
7. L
   USA
8. L
   ARST
9. W
   CCU
10. W
    GASO
11. L
    UL
12. W
    USM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2024

1. Matthew CaldwellQB226 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 94th of 232 QBs
   0.94WAR0.50 to 1.37
2. Damien TaylorRB136 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 78th of 373 RBs
   0.32WAR0.21 to 0.41
3. Devonte RossWR59 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 24th of 452 WRs
   0.23WAR0.09 to 0.37
4. Gerald GreenRB99 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 131st of 373 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.29
5. Goose CrowderQB50 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 180th of 232 QBs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.29
6. Landon ParkerWR23 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 169th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Scott Taylor RenfroePK10 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 92nd of 114 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. Tucker KilcreaseQB62 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 221st of 232 QBs
   0.05WAR−0.07 to 0.17

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  500500113th of 131Roster talent: 500, 113th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127106th of 131Recruiting: 127, 106th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%107th of 130Returning production: 26%, 107th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.6−6.694th of 131SP+ rating: −6.6, 94th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 NEVQ4 6:12 4th & 1 at NEV 1, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−7.2 pts
2. vs ULMQ4 14:36 4th & 3 at ULM 18, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at IOWAQ3 11:19 4th & 2 at TROY 28, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at USAQ3 5:40 4th & 8 at USA 29, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at USAQ3 5:40 4th & 8 at USA 29, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TXSTQ3 7:03 4th & 8 at TROY 48, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at IOWAQ2 3:34 4th & 6 at IOWA 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ULQ4 9:52 4th & 6 at TROY 39, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

98th of 134 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

   NEV
2. L

   MEM
3. L

   IOWA
4. W

   FAMU
5. L

   ULM
6. L

   TXST
7. L

   USA
8. L

   ARST
9. W

   CCU
10. W

    GASO
11. L

    UL
12. W

    USM

What moved it, 2024

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−1.04
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• NEVL 26-28 vs NEV74% → 6%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• MEML 17-38 at MEM8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• IOWAL 21-38 at IOWA5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −10
• FAMUW 34-12 vs FAMU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• ULML 9-13 vs ULM68% → 4%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• TXSTL 17-38 vs TXST16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• USAL 9-25 at USA24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28, Clock +1
• ARSTL 31-34 at ARST23% → 5%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• CCUW 38-24 vs CCU38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +3
• GASOW 28-20 at GASO29% → 98%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• ULL 30-51 at UL27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30
• USMW 52-20 vs USM87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16

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.