Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0636th
  Defense−0.0491st
• 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.
  Offense43.6%60th
  Defense34.2%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0914th
  Defense+1.374th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0123rd
  Defense−0.1298th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1549th
  Defense+0.0771st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.4%71st
  Defense38.6%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.
  Offense31.3%29th
  Defense27.2%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0274th
  Defense2.2298th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.8%83rd
  Defense27.3%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.1%89th
  Defense21.7%98th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   WVU
2. W
   DEL
3. W
   ECU
4. W
   ODU
5. L
   CLEM
6. W
   BC
7. W
   UNC
8. W
   DUKE
9. L
   MIA
10. L
    GT
11. W
    PITT
12. W
    UVA
13. L
    OKST

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

Players, 2017

1. Josh JacksonQB398 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 42nd of 226 QBs
   1.50WAR0.88 to 2.18
2. Deshawn McCleaseRB89 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 104th of 352 RBs
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.35
3. Cam PhillipsWR86 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 31st of 426 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
4. Travon McMillianRB97 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 182nd of 352 RBs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.25
5. Steven PeoplesRB58 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 203rd of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.19
6. Sean SavoyWR69 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 190th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Eric KumahWR43 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 190th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. Joey SlyePK16 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 75th of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66266233rd of 130Roster talent: 662, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20920930th of 130Recruiting: 209, 30th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  23%23%121st of 128Returning production: 23%, 121st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.3+14.321st of 128SP+ rating: +14.3, 21st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.21 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 UVAQ4 9:27 4th & 1 at UVA 14, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. at OKSTQ4 0:11 4th & 9 at OKST 27, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
3. vs PITTQ4 1:46 4th & 1 at VT 29, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at UVAQ2 8:21 4th & 1 at VT 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs WVUQ4 1:55 4th & 1 at WVU 14, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at UVAQ3 5:05 4th & 28 at UVA 35, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. vs DUKEQ2 1:15 4th & 4 at DUKE 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs WVUQ3 5:07 4th & 2 at WVU 21, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

68th of 130 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

   WVU
2. W

   DEL
3. W

   ECU
4. W

   ODU
5. L

   CLEM
6. W

   BC
7. W

   UNC
8. W

   DUKE
9. L

   MIA
10. L

    GT
11. W

    PITT
12. W

    UVA
13. L

    OKST

What moved it, 2017

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+0.09
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.53

Game by game

• WVUW 31-24 vs WVU62% → 90%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• DELW 27-0 vs DEL99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ECUW 64-17 at ECU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• ODUW 38-0 vs ODU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• CLEML 17-31 vs CLEM31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• BCW 23-10 at BC85% → 98%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• UNCW 59-7 vs UNC91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• DUKEW 24-3 vs DUKE84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• MIAL 10-28 at MIA41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +1
• GTL 22-28 at GT58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• PITTW 20-14 vs PITT83% → 85%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position −1
• UVAW 10-0 at UVA65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• OKSTL 21-30 at OKST29% → 4%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, 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.