Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2281st
  Defense+0.2024th
• 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.
  Offense48.3%86th
  Defense46.8%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2338th
  Defense+1.2933rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2089th
  Defense+0.2115th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2463rd
  Defense+0.1948th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.0%90th
  Defense51.3%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%34th
  Defense36.2%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1777th
  Defense3.359th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%65th
  Defense18.0%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.2%67th
  Defense16.9%54th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   NCSU
2. W
   DUKE
3. L
   UNC
4. W
   BC
5. L
   WAKE
6. W
   LOU
7. L
   LIB
8. L
   MIA
9. L
   PITT
10. L
    CLEM
11. W
    UVA

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

Players, 2020

1. Hendon HookerQB249 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 28th of 212 QBs
   0.88WAR0.41 to 1.32
2. Khalil HerbertRB146 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 5th of 338 RBs
   0.72WAR0.58 to 0.87
3. Raheem BlackshearRB80 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 154th of 338 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.27
4. Braxton BurmeisterQB119 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 123rd of 212 QBs
   0.21WAR−0.01 to 0.46
5. Tayvion RobinsonWR57 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 44th of 409 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
6. Brian JohnsonPK24 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 1st of 97 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Tre TurnerWR55 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 129th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
8. Quincy PattersonQB17 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 186th of 212 QBs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67167134th of 127Roster talent: 671, 34th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820833rd of 127Recruiting: 208, 33rd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%69th of 127Returning production: 62%, 69th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.7+13.717th of 127SP+ rating: +13.7, 17th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.14 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 LIBQ4 5:46 4th & 3 at LIB 9, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
2. vs LIBQ3 1:57 4th & 4 at LIB 33, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs UVAQ3 3:31 4th & 1 at VT 47, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs MIAQ4 11:44 4th & 7 at MIA 38, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs NCSUQ2 14:48 4th & 1 at VT 31, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at DUKEQ3 3:17 4th & 7 at DUKE 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs BCQ3 2:10 4th & 3 at BC 10, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at PITTQ1 3:38 4th & 1 at VT 25, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

114th of 127 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

   NCSU
2. W

   DUKE
3. L

   UNC
4. W

   BC
5. L

   WAKE
6. W

   LOU
7. L

   LIB
8. L

   MIA
9. L

   PITT
10. L

    CLEM
11. W

    UVA

What moved it, 2020

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−0.12
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.74

Game by game

• NCSUW 45-24 vs NCSU64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −1
• DUKEW 38-31 at DUKE78% → 97%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• UNCL 45-56 at UNC31% → 2%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• BCW 40-14 vs BC81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• WAKEL 16-23 at WAKE76% → 3%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −3
• LOUW 42-35 at LOU56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• LIBL 35-38 vs LIB87% → 42%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −11, Clock −2
• MIAL 24-25 vs MIA51% → 21%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −34, Clock −3
• PITTL 14-47 at PITT62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −55, Timeouts +1
• CLEML 10-45 vs CLEM5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• UVAW 33-15 vs UVA60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +37, 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.