Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0515th
  Defense+0.0880th
• 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.
  Offense39.5%20th
  Defense39.3%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1324th
  Defense+1.1860th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.049th
  Defense−0.0595th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1838th
  Defense+0.2150th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.8%16th
  Defense44.1%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.2%45th
  Defense30.4%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5618th
  Defense2.4190th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%45th
  Defense23.8%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%45th
  Defense2.4%73rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 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
   UCLA
2. W
   RICH
3. W
   LOU
4. L
   BYU
5. W
   KENT
6. W
   PITT
7. L
   DUKE
8. L
   UNC
9. L
   GT
10. L
    FSU
11. W
    MIA
12. L
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Virginia.

Players, 2014

1. Greyson LambertQB273 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 100th of 199 QBs
   1.03WAR0.56 to 1.41
2. Matt JohnsQB148 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 131st of 199 QBs
   0.66WAR0.43 to 0.91
3. Canaan SeverinWR56 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 36th of 469 WRs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.38
4. Kevin Parks?205 plays · +0.070 pts/play
   0.27WAR0.12 to 0.41
5. Ian FryePK24 plays · +0.460 pts/play · 7th of 114 kickers
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.27
6. Khalek Shepherd?65 plays · +0.131 pts/play
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
7. Taquan Mizzell?97 plays · +0.061 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.20
8. Miles GoochWR36 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 200th of 469 WRs
   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'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.28 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 MIAQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at MIA 1, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. at VTQ3 3:21 4th & 1 at UVA 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. vs UNCQ4 14:53 4th & 2 at UVA 10, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs UCLAQ4 3:20 4th & 8 at UCLA 17, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
5. at DUKEQ3 4:30 4th & 2 at UVA 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs UCLAQ4 6:47 4th & 3 at UCLA 10, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs LOUQ3 2:56 4th & 3 at LOU 30, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. vs LOUQ3 8:39 4th & 4 at LOU 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

87th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Virginia's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   UCLA
2. W

   RICH
3. W

   LOU
4. L

   BYU
5. W

   KENT
6. W

   PITT
7. L

   DUKE
8. L

   UNC
9. L

   GT
10. L

    FSU
11. W

    MIA
12. L

    VT

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Virginia'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−0.71
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.39

Game by game

• UCLAL 20-28 vs UCLA11% → 4%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• RICHW 45-13 vs RICH92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• LOUW 23-21 vs LOU28% → 91%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +3
• BYUL 33-41 at BYU21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• KENTW 45-13 vs KENT93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• PITTW 24-19 vs PITT64% → 94%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +4
• DUKEL 13-20 at DUKE38% → 7%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• UNCL 27-28 vs UNC72% → 19%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −35, Clock −5
• GTL 10-35 at GT48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −1
• FSUL 20-34 at FSU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• MIAW 30-13 vs MIA32% → 99%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +54, Clock −1
• VTL 20-24 at VT56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Virginia's side.

Closest call

UVA 31-30 WAKE (2024) - Virginia dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.