Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.034th
  Defense+0.1821st
• 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.
  Offense40.6%23rd
  Defense44.8%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1737th
  Defense+1.2621st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0121st
  Defense+0.0365th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.057th
  Defense+0.365th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%53rd
  Defense49.7%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.1%2nd
  Defense34.5%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7524th
  Defense2.8657th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%17th
  Defense19.7%54th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%34th
  Defense16.2%50th

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, 2016

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
   RICH
2. L
   ORE
3. L
   CONN
4. W
   CMU
5. W
   DUKE
6. L
   PITT
7. L
   UNC
8. L
   LOU
9. L
   WAKE
10. L
    MIA
11. L
    GT
12. L
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Virginia.

Players, 2016

1. Kurt BenkertQB354 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 111th of 218 QBs
   0.67WAR0.12 to 1.30
2. Taquan Mizzell?195 plays · +0.093 pts/play
   0.34WAR0.15 to 0.51
3. Albert Reid?80 plays · +0.179 pts/play
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.37
4. Nicholas ConteP61 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 20th of 82 punters
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
5. Matt JohnsQB46 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 168th of 218 QBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.26
6. Keeon JohnsonWR67 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 140th of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.23
7. Doni DowlingWR60 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 165th of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
8. Olamide ZaccheausWR63 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 187th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61961942nd of 128Roster talent: 619, 42nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18318345th of 128Recruiting: 183, 45th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%50th of 128Returning production: 71%, 50th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.8−3.883rd of 128SP+ rating: −3.8, 83rd 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, 2016

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 0.18 of the 0.21 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 CONNQ4 0:00 4th & 2 at CONN 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. vs MIAQ3 6:00 4th & 1 at UVA 42, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at CONNQ4 1:33 4th & 10 at CONN 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
4. vs CMUQ4 14:54 4th & 4 at CMU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs RICHQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at UVA 35, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs PITTQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at UVA 43, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs MIAQ4 14:54 4th & 17 at MIA 47, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
8. at DUKEQ4 5:14 4th & 5 at DUKE 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

113th 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

   RICH
2. L

   ORE
3. L

   CONN
4. W

   CMU
5. W

   DUKE
6. L

   PITT
7. L

   UNC
8. L

   LOU
9. L

   WAKE
10. L

    MIA
11. L

    GT
12. L

    VT

What moved it, 2016

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−1.91
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• RICHL 20-37 vs RICH86% → 1%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −64, Clock −3
• OREL 26-44 at ORE9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• CONNL 10-13 at CONN32% → 17%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• CMUW 49-35 vs CMU44% → 99%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• DUKEW 34-20 at DUKE35% → 99%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
• PITTL 31-45 vs PITT36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• UNCL 14-35 vs UNC29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• LOUL 25-32 vs LOU4% → 11%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• WAKEL 20-27 at WAKE42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• MIAL 14-34 vs MIA20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• GTL 17-31 at GT23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position +1
• VTL 10-52 at VT11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14

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.