Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1143rd
  Defense+0.0572nd
• 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.
  Offense43.2%47th
  Defense37.6%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1116th
  Defense+1.363rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0216th
  Defense+0.0554th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3287th
  Defense+0.0677th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%44th
  Defense39.2%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.
  Offense34.4%51st
  Defense34.6%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7528th
  Defense2.3695th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%47th
  Defense23.0%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.7%70th
  Defense21.3%65th

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, 2019

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. L
   BC
2. W
   ODU
3. W
   FUR
4. L
   DUKE
5. W
   MIA
6. W
   URI
7. W
   UNC
8. L
   ND
9. W
   WAKE
10. W
    GT
11. W
    PITT
12. L
    UVA
13. L
    UK

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

Players, 2019

1. Hendon HookerQB216 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 88th of 228 QBs
   0.90WAR0.46 to 1.33
2. Ryan WillisQB95 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 132nd of 228 QBs
   0.46WAR0.29 to 0.62
3. Deshawn McCleaseRB144 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 89th of 349 RBs
   0.42WAR0.31 to 0.53
4. Quincy PattersonQB64 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 157th of 228 QBs
   0.33WAR0.21 to 0.47
5. Tre TurnerWR67 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 79th of 439 WRs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
6. Keshawn KingRB59 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 222nd of 349 RBs
   0.17WAR0.14 to 0.20
7. Brian JohnsonPK14 plays · +0.436 pts/play · 63rd of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Damon HazeltonWR46 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 219th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69669629th of 130Roster talent: 696, 29th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21421430th of 130Recruiting: 214, 30th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%31st of 130Returning production: 75%, 31st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.0+8.038th of 130SP+ rating: +8.0, 38th 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, 2019

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.19 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 UNCQ4 6:25 4th & 2 at VT 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
2. vs WAKEQ3 2:38 4th & 1 at VT 35, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. at UKQ4 12:47 4th & 3 at UK 9, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at MIAQ3 13:11 4th & 1 at VT 34, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at BCQ3 12:56 4th & 3 at BC 47, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs DUKEQ2 10:15 4th & 1 at VT 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs URIQ2 0:01 4th & 24 at URI 44, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs DUKEQ3 9:04 4th & 2 at VT 18, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

58th 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. L

   BC
2. W

   ODU
3. W

   FUR
4. L

   DUKE
5. W

   MIA
6. W

   URI
7. W

   UNC
8. L

   ND
9. W

   WAKE
10. W

    GT
11. W

    PITT
12. L

    UVA
13. L

    UK

What moved it, 2019

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+0.37
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.13

Game by game

• BCL 28-35 at BC63% → 5%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• ODUW 31-17 vs ODU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• FURW 24-17 vs FUR95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• DUKEL 10-45 vs DUKE63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −62, Clock −1
• MIAW 42-35 at MIA19% → 78%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position −5
• URIW 34-17 vs URI97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• UNCW 43-41 vs UNC40% → 86%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts −18
• NDL 20-21 at ND12% → 6%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −1
• WAKEW 36-17 vs WAKE44% → 99%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +48, Possession & field position −1
• GTW 45-0 at GT70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• PITTW 28-0 vs PITT63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37
• UVAL 30-39 at UVA54% → 4%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −40, Possession & field position +2
• UKL 30-37 at UK58% → 22%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position −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.