Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1254th
  Defense+0.0280th
• 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.
  Offense45.7%71st
  Defense38.0%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.066th
  Defense+1.1943rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0018th
  Defense0.0076th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3183rd
  Defense+0.0876th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.3%62nd
  Defense45.8%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.3%84th
  Defense24.7%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8234th
  Defense2.5681st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%31st
  Defense23.4%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%70th
  Defense21.5%95th

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, 2016

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
   LIB
2. L
   TENN
3. W
   BC
4. W
   ECU
5. W
   UNC
6. L
   SYR
7. W
   MIA
8. W
   PITT
9. W
   DUKE
10. L
    GT
11. W
    ND
12. W
    UVA
13. L
    CLEM
14. W
    ARK

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

Players, 2016

1. Jerod EvansQB517 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 8th of 218 QBs
   2.44WAR1.60 to 3.29
2. Isaiah FordWR115 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 16th of 417 WRs
   0.36WAR0.21 to 0.49
3. Travon McMillianRB119 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 123rd of 347 RBs
   0.31WAR0.20 to 0.44
4. Cam PhillipsWR109 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 27th of 417 WRs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.43
5. Sam RogersFB74 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 216th of 347 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
6. Joey SlyePK21 plays · +0.362 pts/play · 28th of 116 kickers
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
7. Mitchell LudwigP56 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 54th of 82 punters
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.18
8. Brenden MotleyQB10 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 211th of 218 QBs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64764736th of 128Roster talent: 647, 36th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20720731st of 128Recruiting: 207, 31st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%43rd of 128Returning production: 75%, 43rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.2+15.222nd of 128SP+ rating: +15.2, 22nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.28 of the 0.37 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 NDQ4 1:13 4th & 1 at ND 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−9.2 pts
2. at NDQ4 4:16 4th & 2 at ND 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.4 pts
3. at PITTQ4 9:39 4th & 2 at PITT 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
4. vs ARKQ3 9:22 4th & 1 at VT 38, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at NDQ4 13:35 4th & 2 at ND 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at NDQ3 11:02 4th & 11 at ND 32, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
7. vs MIAQ4 8:22 4th & 1 at MIA 25, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs BCQ2 12:13 4th & 1 at VT 33, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

29th 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

   LIB
2. L

   TENN
3. W

   BC
4. W

   ECU
5. W

   UNC
6. L

   SYR
7. W

   MIA
8. W

   PITT
9. W

   DUKE
10. L

    GT
11. W

    ND
12. W

    UVA
13. L

    CLEM
14. W

    ARK

What moved it, 2016

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+1.45
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.71

Game by game

• LIBW 36-13 vs LIB98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• TENNL 24-45 at TENN24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28
• BCW 49-0 vs BC69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• ECUW 54-17 vs ECU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24
• UNCW 34-3 at UNC39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +60, Clock +2
• SYRL 17-31 at SYR85% → 1%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts −1
• MIAW 37-16 vs MIA59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• PITTW 39-36 at PITT61% → 93%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• DUKEW 24-21 at DUKE75% → 95%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• GTL 20-30 vs GT83% → 6%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −58, Possession & field position +3
• NDW 34-31 at ND40% → 81%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• UVAW 52-10 vs UVA89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• CLEML 35-42 vs CLEM23% → 5%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• ARKW 35-24 vs ARK70% → 97%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +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.