Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1344th
  Defense+0.0754th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%45th
  Defense39.8%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2657th
  Defense+1.3518th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1667th
  Defense+0.0260th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1126th
  Defense+0.1553rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%50th
  Defense46.9%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.7%34th
  Defense25.5%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0242nd
  Defense2.5385th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%33rd
  Defense24.1%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%16th
  Defense16.5%57th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   SHSU
2. W
   ALST
3. L
   MIZ
4. L
   USU
5. W
   USM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2026

1. Goose CrowderQB143 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 96th of 192 QBs
   0.21WAR−0.03 to 0.43
2. Gavin GriffinRB49 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 87th of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
3. Jordan LovettRB38 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 152nd of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
4. Jaheim MerriweatherRB31 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. Evan CrenshawP17 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 51st of 84 punters
   0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.04
6. Jackson WorleyTE1 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 159th of 164 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59659696th of 138Roster talent: 596, 96th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16516579th of 138Recruiting: 165, 79th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%79th of 136Returning production: 35%, 79th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.6−6.6100th of 138SP+ rating so far: −6.6, 100th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.03 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 MIZQ4 2:46 4th & 1 at MIZ 36, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. at MIZQ4 10:39 4th & 2 at TROY 31, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at MIZQ2 6:45 4th & 4 at TROY 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs ALSTQ4 6:16 4th & 2 at TROY 28, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. at MIZQ4 0:41 4th & 10 at TROY 15, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at USUQ1 1:24 4th & 10 at USU 35, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts
7. at USUQ2 10:24 4th & 6 at USU 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

66th of 138 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

   SHSU
2. W

   ALST
3. L

   MIZ
4. L

   USU
5. W

   USM

What moved it, 2026

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+0.14
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.07

Game by game

• SHSUW 24-21 vs SHSU84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• ALSTW 34-17 vs ALST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• MIZL 17-27 at MIZ5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• USUL 10-21 at USU39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• USMW 55-34 vs USM71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, 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.