Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0517th
  Defense+0.0295th
• 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.
  Offense39.9%22nd
  Defense34.9%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.076th
  Defense+1.356th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0210th
  Defense+0.0666th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1429th
  Defense−0.0298th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.7%39th
  Defense39.0%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.1%9th
  Defense28.5%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5315th
  Defense2.5583rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.4%22nd
  Defense22.8%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense2.2%63rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   W&M
2. W
   OSU
3. L
   ECU
4. L
   GT
5. W
   WMU
6. W
   UNC
7. L
   PITT
8. L
   MIA
9. L
   BC
10. W
    DUKE
11. L
    WAKE
12. W
    UVA
13. W
    CIN

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

Players, 2014

1. Michael BrewerQB451 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 82nd of 199 QBs
   1.30WAR0.61 to 1.95
2. Isaiah FordWR74 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 30th of 469 WRs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.41
3. J.C. Coleman?86 plays · +0.114 pts/play
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.25
4. A.J. HughesP75 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 10th of 94 punters
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.30
5. Joey SlyePK20 plays · +0.452 pts/play · 15th of 114 kickers
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
6. Marshawn WilliamsRB94 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 145th of 350 RBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
7. Cam PhillipsWR48 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.21
8. Sam RogersFB53 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 210th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.31 of the 0.40 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 DUKEQ4 3:44 4th & 16 at VT 48, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−7.9 pts
2. vs GTQ3 0:08 4th & 2 at GT 38, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
3. vs UVAQ4 11:29 4th & 5 at UVA 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
4. vs UVAQ4 6:50 4th & 10 at UVA 32, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
5. vs BCQ4 3:27 4th & 5 at VT 30, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
6. at DUKEQ4 2:00 4th & 2 at VT 31, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
7. at OSUQ4 3:06 4th & 1 at OSU 29, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
8. vs BCQ2 2:59 4th & 1 at VT 36, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

100th of 128 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

   W&M
2. W

   OSU
3. L

   ECU
4. L

   GT
5. W

   WMU
6. W

   UNC
7. L

   PITT
8. L

   MIA
9. L

   BC
10. W

    DUKE
11. L

    WAKE
12. W

    UVA
13. W

    CIN

What moved it, 2014

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−0.27
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.12
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.62

Game by game

• W&MW 34-9 vs W&M95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• OSUW 35-21 at OSU19% → 99%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +64, Clock +2
• ECUL 21-28 vs ECU78% → 5%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• GTL 24-27 vs GT69% → 5%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• WMUW 35-17 vs WMU96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• UNCW 34-17 at UNC56% → 98%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• PITTL 16-21 at PITT58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −3
• MIAL 6-30 vs MIA54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• BCL 31-33 vs BC70% → 6%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• DUKEW 17-16 at DUKE33% → 95%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• WAKEL 3-6 at WAKE86% → 21%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +23
• UVAW 24-20 vs UVA44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• CINW 33-17 vs CIN46% → 99%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +1

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.