Virginia Tech

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+0.2271st
  Defense+0.0657th
• 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.
  Offense46.7%68th
  Defense37.5%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3174th
  Defense+1.3421st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0739th
  Defense−0.0478th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4180th
  Defense+0.2335th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%58th
  Defense45.5%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.4%90th
  Defense23.2%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6716th
  Defense1.4199th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%10th
  Defense32.1%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%77th
  Defense23.9%99th

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 Virginia Tech 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
   VMI
2. W
   ODU
3. W
   MD
4. W
   BC
5. L
   PITT
6. L
   CAL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Virginia Tech.

Players, 2026

1. Ethan GrunkemeyerQB174 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 47th of 192 QBs
   0.35WAR0.08 to 0.60
2. Que'Sean BrownWR39 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 58th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
3. Luke ReynoldsTE36 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 12th of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.11
4. Ayden GreeneWR17 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 197th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06
5. Nathan TottenP15 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 11th of 84 punters
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.07
6. John LovePK7 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 42nd of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
7. Jeffrey Overton Jr.RB16 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 239th of 320 RBs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05
8. Marlion JacksonWR9 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 271st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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 Virginia Tech'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.
  76976927th of 138Roster talent: 769, 27th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21121135th of 138Recruiting: 211, 35th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%76th of 136Returning production: 37%, 76th 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.
  +9.5+9.539th of 138SP+ rating so far: +9.5, 39th 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 Virginia Tech'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 0.02 of the 0.05 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 PITTQ4 5:32 4th & 5 at VT 40, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at BCQ3 11:58 4th & 4 at BC 4, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at BCQ2 4:22 4th & 4 at BC 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at MDQ4 8:53 4th & 4 at MD 47, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at MDQ3 2:43 4th & 2 at VT 43, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs ODUQ2 3:10 4th & 4 at ODU 4, up 28Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at CALQ1 2:11 4th & 9 at CAL 37, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs PITTQ2 9:24 4th & 5 at PITT 7, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

102nd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Virginia Tech's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   VMI
2. W

   ODU
3. W

   MD
4. W

   BC
5. L

   PITT
6. L

   CAL

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Virginia Tech'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+0.84
• Clock+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.35

Game by game

• VMIW 73-3 vs VMI100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ODUW 44-21 vs ODU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• MDW 35-26 at MD54% → 98%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• BCW 21-14 at BC85% → 96%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +26, Clock +2
• PITTL 33-35 vs PITT55% → 16%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• CALL 20-25 at CAL75% → 98%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from Virginia Tech's side.

Closest call

CAL 34-42 VT (2025) - Virginia Tech dropped to a 5.3% win probability before pulling it out.