Virginia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1151st
  Defense+0.244th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%39th
  Defense45.6%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2557th
  Defense+1.2550th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1578th
  Defense+0.1517th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0614th
  Defense+0.384th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.0%58th
  Defense50.1%21st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.5%19th
  Defense34.1%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3392nd
  Defense3.0130th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.7%88th
  Defense16.3%21st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%30th
  Defense13.2%14th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   SC
2. L
   VAN
3. L
   ODU
4. W
   WOF
5. W
   NCSU
6. L
   WAKE
7. L
   GT
8. W
   CAL
9. L
   LOU
10. L
    FSU
11. L
    MIA
12. L
    UVA

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

Players, 2025

1. Kyron DronesQB367 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 104th of 231 QBs
   0.76WAR0.15 to 1.35
2. Marcellous HawkinsRB109 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 77th of 365 RBs
   0.24WAR0.19 to 0.30
3. Terion StewartRB86 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 173rd of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
4. John LovePK18 plays · +0.321 pts/play · 29th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
5. Ayden GreeneWR48 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 281st of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.14
6. Takye HeathWR31 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 360th of 451 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.08
7. Donavon GreeneWR24 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 366th of 451 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07
8. Benji GosnellTE14 plays · +0.030 pts/play · 197th of 213 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.03

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71271240th of 134Roster talent: 712, 40th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20620636th of 134Recruiting: 206, 36th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%58th of 132Returning production: 40%, 58th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.1−10.1103rd of 134SP+ rating: −10.1, 103rd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.23 of the 0.26 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 1:36 4th & 1 at VT 40, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−8.9 pts
2. at SCQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at SC 38, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. vs CALQ4 1:12 4th & 2 at CAL 28, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
4. vs CALQ3 8:45 4th & 3 at CAL 35, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs VANQ3 5:50 4th & 1 at VT 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. vs WAKEQ3 7:07 4th & 2 at WAKE 21, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at SCQ4 9:00 4th & 2 at SC 22, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. vs VANQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at VAN 10, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

119th of 136 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

   SC
2. L

   VAN
3. L

   ODU
4. W

   WOF
5. W

   NCSU
6. L

   WAKE
7. L

   GT
8. W

   CAL
9. L

   LOU
10. L

    FSU
11. L

    MIA
12. L

    UVA

What moved it, 2025

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−3.25
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.13
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.46

Game by game

• SCL 11-24 at SC27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• VANL 20-44 vs VAN49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• ODUL 26-45 vs ODU67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• WOFW 38-6 vs WOF99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• NCSUW 23-21 at NCSU22% → 94%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• WAKEL 23-30 vs WAKE65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• GTL 20-35 at GT14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• CALW 42-34 vs CAL71% → 6%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −58, Clock +13
• LOUL 16-28 vs LOU26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• FSUL 14-34 at FSU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• MIAL 17-34 vs MIA13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• UVAL 7-27 at UVA30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −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.