Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1352nd
  Defense+0.1629th
• 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.
  Offense43.0%43rd
  Defense41.8%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2462nd
  Defense+1.403rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0744th
  Defense+0.1327th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2157th
  Defense+0.2326th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%68th
  Defense46.1%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.6%17th
  Defense34.0%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9453rd
  Defense2.7865th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%71st
  Defense22.1%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%37th
  Defense15.3%31st

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, 2018

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
   FSU
2. W
   W&M
3. L
   ODU
4. W
   DUKE
5. L
   ND
6. W
   UNC
7. L
   GT
8. L
   BC
9. L
   PITT
10. L
    MIA
11. W
    UVA
12. W
    MRSH
13. L
    CIN

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

Players, 2018

1. Ryan WillisQB387 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 17th of 225 QBs
   2.14WAR1.43 to 2.82
2. Steven PeoplesRB158 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 89th of 351 RBs
   0.40WAR0.30 to 0.50
3. Deshawn McCleaseRB80 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 151st of 351 RBs
   0.28WAR0.22 to 0.34
4. Josh JacksonQB51 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 179th of 225 QBs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.30
5. Eric KumahWR53 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 110th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.23
6. Damon HazeltonWR67 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.21
7. Jalen HolstonRB27 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 273rd of 351 RBs
   0.08WAR0.07 to 0.10
8. Brian JohnsonPK14 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 84th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67667630th of 130Roster talent: 676, 30th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21121131st of 130Recruiting: 211, 31st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%53rd of 129Returning production: 69%, 53rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.9+3.955th of 130SP+ rating: +3.9, 55th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.16 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. vs CINQ3 10:21 4th & 1 at CIN 10, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at UNCQ3 14:54 4th & 1 at VT 30, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. at FSUQ2 5:18 4th & 1 at VT 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs BCQ2 2:15 4th & 20 at BC 31, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
5. vs UVAQ2 0:05 4th & 1 at VT 27, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. at FSUQ4 12:00 4th & 6 at FSU 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at ODUQ4 7:15 4th & 3 at ODU 13, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
8. vs MRSHQ2 11:04 4th & 2 at midfield, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

97th 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

   FSU
2. W

   W&M
3. L

   ODU
4. W

   DUKE
5. L

   ND
6. W

   UNC
7. L

   GT
8. L

   BC
9. L

   PITT
10. L

    MIA
11. W

    UVA
12. W

    MRSH
13. L

    CIN

What moved it, 2018

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−1.02
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.10

Game by game

• FSUW 24-3 at FSU30% → 100%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +62, Clock +3
• W&MW 62-17 vs W&M99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• ODUL 35-49 at ODU97% → 2%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −95: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• DUKEW 31-14 at DUKE35% → 99%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• NDL 23-45 vs ND33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• UNCW 22-19 at UNC66% → 83%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +34, Clock +3
• GTL 28-49 vs GT60% → 0%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• BCL 21-31 vs BC48% → 4%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• PITTL 22-52 at PITT46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts +1
• MIAL 14-38 vs MIA31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• UVAW 34-31 vs UVA42% → 71%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +29: Timeouts −24, Scoreboard +19
• MRSHW 41-20 vs MRSH66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −1
• CINL 31-35 vs CIN38% → 7%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3

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.