Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0840th
  Defense+0.1429th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%37th
  Defense45.9%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2261st
  Defense+1.1852nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0333rd
  Defense+0.0365th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1549th
  Defense+0.2718th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%49th
  Defense48.4%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.8%35th
  Defense39.8%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7125th
  Defense2.7165th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.7%24th
  Defense24.5%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.7%16th
  Defense1.5%19th

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, 2015

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. L
   ND
3. W
   W&M
4. L
   BOIS
5. L
   PITT
6. W
   SYR
7. L
   UNC
8. W
   GT
9. L
   MIA
10. L
    LOU
11. W
    DUKE
12. L
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Virginia.

Players, 2015

1. Matt JohnsQB377 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 43rd of 205 QBs
   1.73WAR1.11 to 2.40
2. Canaan SeverinWR60 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 28th of 411 WRs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.40
3. Taquan Mizzell?223 plays · +0.059 pts/play
   0.25WAR0.04 to 0.44
4. Ian FryePK21 plays · +0.460 pts/play · 15th of 115 kickers
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
5. Nicholas ConteP46 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 36th of 92 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Albert Reid?51 plays · +0.108 pts/play
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. T.J. ThorpeWR42 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 280th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
8. Olamide ZaccheausWR32 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 343rd of 411 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 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'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66766730th of 128Roster talent: 667, 30th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19319340th of 128Recruiting: 193, 40th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%82nd of 127Returning production: 50%, 82nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.4+1.470th of 128SP+ rating: +1.4, 70th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.15 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 VTQ3 6:46 4th & 1 at UVA 26, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs VTQ2 2:16 4th & 16 at UVA 34, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
3. at PITTQ4 3:44 4th & 23 at UVA 15, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
4. vs GTQ2 1:44 4th & 2 at UVA 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at UCLAQ2 1:37 4th & 2 at UCLA 2, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs GTQ4 4:23 4th & 3 at GT 41, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs VTQ2 4:24 4th & 2 at VT 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs BOISQ2 10:49 4th & 3 at BOIS 31, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

83rd 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. L

   ND
3. W

   W&M
4. L

   BOIS
5. L

   PITT
6. W

   SYR
7. L

   UNC
8. W

   GT
9. L

   MIA
10. L

    LOU
11. W

    DUKE
12. L

    VT

What moved it, 2015

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−1.08
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.74

Game by game

• UCLAL 16-34 at UCLA14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19
• NDL 27-34 vs ND17% → 11%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• W&MW 35-29 vs W&M94% → 96%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +12
• BOISL 14-56 vs BOIS42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• PITTL 19-26 at PITT22% → 3%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• SYRW 44-38 vs SYR70% → 87%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −19
• UNCL 13-26 at UNC16% → 2%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• GTW 27-21 vs GT44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• MIAL 21-27 at MIA26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• LOUL 31-38 at LOU25% → 3%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• DUKEW 42-34 vs DUKE57% → 97%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• VTL 20-23 vs VT34% → 10%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3

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.