Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1356th
  Defense+0.0861st
• 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.
  Offense43.1%60th
  Defense37.8%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2332nd
  Defense+1.2650th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0845th
  Defense+0.0945th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2555th
  Defense+0.1380th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%65th
  Defense44.9%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.1%46th
  Defense24.1%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1758th
  Defense2.9272nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%38th
  Defense19.4%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%60th
  Defense18.0%75th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   ODU
2. L
   PUR
3. L
   RUTG
4. L
   MRSH
5. W
   PITT
6. L
   FSU
7. W
   WAKE
8. W
   SYR
9. L
   LOU
10. W
    BC
11. L
    NCSU
12. W
    UVA
13. W
    TULN

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

Players, 2023

1. Kyron DronesQB367 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 25th of 250 QBs
   1.94WAR1.22 to 2.65
2. Bhayshul TutenRB176 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 36th of 383 RBs
   0.40WAR0.24 to 0.54
3. Peter MooreP47 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 8th of 103 punters
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.28
4. Grant WellsQB68 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 192nd of 250 QBs
   0.18WAR0.05 to 0.31
5. Jaylin LaneWR45 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 111th of 457 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
6. Da'Quan FeltonWR39 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 160th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.20
7. Malachi ThomasRB59 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 230th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. John LovePK17 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 33rd of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63963959th of 130Roster talent: 639, 59th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19219247th of 130Recruiting: 192, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%35th of 128Returning production: 65%, 35th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.8+5.845th of 130SP+ rating: +5.8, 45th 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, 2023

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.12 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 WAKEQ4 8:06 4th & 1 at WAKE 19, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. vs PURQ2 10:34 4th & 1 at VT 39, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at RUTGQ2 2:32 4th & 1 at VT 37, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at MRSHQ2 1:39 4th & 2 at VT 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at FSUQ4 8:39 4th & 22 at FSU 36, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs SYRQ3 13:35 4th & 2 at VT 48, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs PITTQ4 6:06 4th & 2 at PITT 15, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs PURQ3 5:28 4th & 9 at PUR 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

55th of 133 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

   ODU
2. L

   PUR
3. L

   RUTG
4. L

   MRSH
5. W

   PITT
6. L

   FSU
7. W

   WAKE
8. W

   SYR
9. L

   LOU
10. W

    BC
11. L

    NCSU
12. W

    UVA
13. W

    TULN

What moved it, 2023

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+0.38
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.11

Game by game

• ODUW 36-17 vs ODU90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• PURL 17-24 vs PUR60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• RUTGL 16-35 at RUTG35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −36
• MRSHL 17-24 at MRSH44% → 4%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• PITTW 38-21 vs PITT48% → 99%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• FSUL 17-39 at FSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• WAKEW 30-13 vs WAKE57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +40
• SYRW 38-10 vs SYR59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts −1
• LOUL 3-34 at LOU28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29
• BCW 48-22 at BC55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• NCSUL 28-35 vs NCSU62% → 5%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• UVAW 55-17 at UVA60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +45
• TULNW 41-20 at TULN82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1

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.