Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0422nd
  Defense+0.1145th
• 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.
  Offense37.7%14th
  Defense38.0%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1519th
  Defense+1.3612th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0116th
  Defense+0.0751st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1218th
  Defense+0.2244th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%13th
  Defense44.3%77th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.6%23rd
  Defense26.8%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9629th
  Defense2.8284th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%30th
  Defense25.4%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%40th
  Defense18.4%80th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   ODU
2. W
   BC
3. W
   WOF
4. L
   WVU
5. L
   UNC
6. L
   PITT
7. L
   MIA
8. L
   NCSU
9. L
   GT
10. L
    DUKE
11. W
    LIB

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

Players, 2022

1. Grant WellsQB334 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 95th of 234 QBs
   0.81WAR0.20 to 1.40
2. Keshawn KingRB90 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 121st of 384 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.33
3. Kaleb SmithWR43 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 82nd of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.26
4. Jalen HolstonRB71 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 196th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Malachi ThomasRB48 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 221st of 384 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
6. Peter MooreP61 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 41st of 102 punters
   0.09WAR−0.01 to 0.18
7. Da'Wain LoftonWR26 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 285th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Dae'Quan WrightTE19 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 78th of 214 TEs
   0.06WAR0.03 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64164152nd of 129Roster talent: 641, 52nd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619640th of 129Recruiting: 196, 40th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  23%23%116th of 128Returning production: 23%, 116th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.5−9.596th of 129SP+ rating: −9.5, 96th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.16 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 NCSUQ4 10:39 4th & 4 at VT 10, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. at ODUQ2 1:26 4th & 14 at ODU 21, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
3. at UNCQ3 11:45 4th & 1 at VT 45, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs MIAQ3 6:20 4th & 1 at VT 17, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs BCQ4 9:48 4th & 1 at VT 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at PITTQ2 11:59 4th & 1 at PITT 1, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at DUKEQ1 0:42 4th & 1 at VT 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs MIAQ4 6:58 4th & 6 at VT 36, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

115th of 131 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

   ODU
2. W

   BC
3. W

   WOF
4. L

   WVU
5. L

   UNC
6. L

   PITT
7. L

   MIA
8. L

   NCSU
9. L

   GT
10. L

    DUKE
11. W

    LIB

What moved it, 2022

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−1.68
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.45

Game by game

• ODUL 17-20 at ODU63% → 5%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• BCW 27-10 vs BC54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +1
• WOFW 27-7 vs WOF98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +5
• WVUL 10-33 vs WVU46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• UNCL 10-41 at UNC23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
• PITTL 29-45 at PITT18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• MIAL 14-20 vs MIA24% → 9%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position +1
• NCSUL 21-22 at NCSU17% → 8%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position +1
• GTL 27-28 vs GT59% → 10%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• DUKEL 7-24 at DUKE25% → 2%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +1
• LIBW 23-22 at LIB26% → 95%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +55, 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.