Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense+0.0856th
• 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%16th
  Defense40.6%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2257th
  Defense+1.2439th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0416th
  Defense+0.1228th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0322nd
  Defense+0.0281st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%28th
  Defense45.2%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.0%9th
  Defense30.6%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7029th
  Defense3.1022nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%46th
  Defense15.5%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%28th
  Defense15.8%47th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. W
   W&M
2. L
   IU
3. W
   CONN
4. W
   BOIS
5. W
   DUKE
6. W
   UNC
7. L
   BC
8. L
   PITT
9. W
   GT
10. L
    LOU
11. L
    MIA
12. L
    VT
13. L
    NAVY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Virginia.

Players, 2017

1. Kurt BenkertQB443 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 112th of 226 QBs
   0.58WAR−0.19 to 1.27
2. Jordan Ellis?157 plays · +0.121 pts/play
   0.36WAR0.24 to 0.47
3. Olamide ZaccheausWR129 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 40th of 426 WRs
   0.20WAR0.08 to 0.30
4. Doni DowlingWR75 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 146th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
5. Andre LevroneWR48 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 163rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Lester ColemanP64 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 51st of 95 punters
   0.04WAR−0.11 to 0.20
7. Joe ReedWR19 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 378th of 426 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Evan ButtsTE29 plays · +0.041 pts/play · 32nd of 199 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60460447th of 130Roster talent: 604, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18118147th of 130Recruiting: 181, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%44th of 128Returning production: 70%, 44th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.8+0.869th of 128SP+ rating: +0.8, 69th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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 GTQ4 10:44 4th & 2 at GT 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. vs GTQ4 10:29 4th & 3 at UVA 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at PITTQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at UVA 36, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at UNCQ3 9:52 4th & 19 at UNC 33, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. vs GTQ3 8:06 4th & 5 at GT 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs VTQ3 11:09 4th & 1 at UVA 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at BOISQ3 7:19 4th & 3 at UVA 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs VTQ4 2:58 4th & 11 at UVA 19, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

67th of 130 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. W

   W&M
2. L

   IU
3. W

   CONN
4. W

   BOIS
5. W

   DUKE
6. W

   UNC
7. L

   BC
8. L

   PITT
9. W

   GT
10. L

    LOU
11. L

    MIA
12. L

    VT
13. L

    NAVY

What moved it, 2017

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−0.60
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• W&MW 28-10 vs W&M96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +9
• IUL 17-34 vs IU43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• CONNW 38-18 vs CONN79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24
• BOISW 42-23 at BOIS20% → 99%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +66, Clock +3
• DUKEW 28-21 vs DUKE44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2
• UNCW 20-14 at UNC63% → 95%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• BCL 10-41 vs BC70% → 0%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −66, Clock −1
• PITTL 14-31 at PITT50% → 1%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• GTW 40-36 vs GT32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +3
• LOUL 21-38 at LOU16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• MIAL 28-44 at MIA10% → 2%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −15
• VTL 0-10 vs VT35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• NAVYL 7-49 at NAVY49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −46

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.