Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0932nd
  Defense+0.0380th
• 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.
  Offense41.0%32nd
  Defense39.2%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2859th
  Defense+1.2556th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1571st
  Defense+0.0269th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0317th
  Defense+0.1165th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.6%53rd
  Defense46.2%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.0%14th
  Defense25.3%92nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9538th
  Defense2.8964th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%27th
  Defense18.8%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%15th
  Defense19.4%85th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   VAN
2. W
   MRSH
3. W
   ODU
4. L
   RUTG
5. L
   MIA
6. W
   STAN
7. W
   BC
8. W
   GT
9. L
   SYR
10. L
    CLEM
11. L
    DUKE
12. W
    UVA
13. L
    MINN

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

Players, 2024

1. Kyron DronesQB298 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 76th of 232 QBs
   1.26WAR0.76 to 1.74
2. Bhayshul TutenRB185 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 34th of 373 RBs
   0.46WAR0.33 to 0.59
3. William Watson IIIQB90 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 145th of 232 QBs
   0.36WAR0.18 to 0.55
4. Collin SchleeQB75 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 146th of 232 QBs
   0.36WAR0.19 to 0.55
5. Stephen GosnellWR36 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 61st of 452 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.26
6. Peter MooreP55 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 8th of 106 punters
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.29
7. John LovePK17 plays · +0.374 pts/play · 16th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
8. Malachi ThomasRB34 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 276th of 373 RBs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.08

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69569552nd of 131Roster talent: 695, 52nd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20220235th of 131Recruiting: 202, 35th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%12th of 130Returning production: 84%, 12th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.0+10.030th of 131SP+ rating: +10.0, 30th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.18 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 MINNQ4 4:24 4th & 14 at MINN 14, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
2. vs RUTGQ2 9:08 4th & 1 at VT 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at ODUQ2 1:50 4th & 1 at VT 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs MINNQ4 8:51 4th & 7 at MINN 17, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
5. at ODUQ3 10:43 4th & 3 at ODU 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs UVAQ2 11:36 4th & 1 at VT 28, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs GTQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at VT 44, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. vs UVAQ2 5:40 4th & 1 at VT 19, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

120th of 134 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

   VAN
2. W

   MRSH
3. W

   ODU
4. L

   RUTG
5. L

   MIA
6. W

   STAN
7. W

   BC
8. W

   GT
9. L

   SYR
10. L

    CLEM
11. L

    DUKE
12. W

    UVA
13. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2024

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−0.67
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.41
• Timeouts+0.43
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.69

Game by game

• VANL 27-34 at VAN84% → 9%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +18
• MRSHW 31-14 vs MRSH93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts −1
• ODUW 37-17 at ODU88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• RUTGL 23-26 vs RUTG62% → 4%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• MIAL 34-38 at MIA11% → 18%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position +2
• STANW 31-7 at STAN71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• BCW 42-21 vs BC73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• GTW 21-6 vs GT76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• SYRL 31-38 at SYR62% → 16%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +22
• CLEML 14-24 vs CLEM32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• DUKEL 28-31 at DUKE60% → 20%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position −3
• UVAW 37-17 vs UVA66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• MINNL 10-24 vs MINN27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −35, Clock −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.