Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1771st
  Defense+0.0469th
• 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.
  Offense45.9%74th
  Defense38.8%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1527th
  Defense+1.2530th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1679th
  Defense+0.0940th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2055th
  Defense0.0086th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.5%88th
  Defense43.1%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.1%15th
  Defense30.5%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2688th
  Defense2.8653rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%91st
  Defense18.8%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%63rd
  Defense18.7%81st

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, 2018

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
   RICH
2. L
   IU
3. W
   OHIO
4. W
   LOU
5. L
   NCSU
6. W
   MIA
7. W
   DUKE
8. W
   UNC
9. L
   PITT
10. W
    LIB
11. L
    GT
12. L
    VT
13. W
    SC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Virginia.

Players, 2018

1. Bryce PerkinsQB470 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 26th of 225 QBs
   1.94WAR1.28 to 2.66
2. Jordan Ellis?156 plays · +0.172 pts/play
   0.50WAR0.39 to 0.63
3. Hasise DuboisWR56 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 104th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
4. Brian DelaneyPK14 plays · +0.419 pts/play · 47th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
5. Olamide ZaccheausWR119 plays · +0.042 pts/play · 201st of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.04 to 0.24
6. Joe ReedWR31 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 234th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. Lester ColemanP42 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 56th of 91 punters
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.12
8. Evan ButtsTE13 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 67th of 204 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54254266th of 130Roster talent: 542, 66th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417459th of 130Recruiting: 174, 59th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%98th of 129Returning production: 44%, 98th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.1+7.142nd of 130SP+ rating: +7.1, 42nd of 130 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, 2018

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 0.10 of the 0.16 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 IUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at UVA 19, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at DUKEQ2 10:15 4th & 1 at DUKE 16, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs OHIOQ4 10:36 4th & 1 at OHIO 13, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at IUQ2 7:58 4th & 1 at UVA 29, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs PITTQ4 2:49 4th & 17 at UVA 15, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
6. vs PITTQ2 5:30 4th & 3 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at DUKEQ3 6:45 4th & 3 at DUKE 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs LOUQ4 11:14 4th & 2 at midfield, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

24th 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

   RICH
2. L

   IU
3. W

   OHIO
4. W

   LOU
5. L

   NCSU
6. W

   MIA
7. W

   DUKE
8. W

   UNC
9. L

   PITT
10. W

    LIB
11. L

    GT
12. L

    VT
13. W

    SC

What moved it, 2018

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+1.46
• Possession & field position+0.10
• Clock−0.35
• Timeouts+0.40
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• RICHW 42-13 vs RICH87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +15
• IUL 16-20 at IU38% → 19%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position +4
• OHIOW 45-31 vs OHIO65% → 98%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −1
• LOUW 27-3 vs LOU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• NCSUL 21-35 at NCSU28% → 2%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• MIAW 16-13 vs MIA25% → 96%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +3
• DUKEW 28-14 at DUKE30% → 98%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +63, Clock +2
• UNCW 31-21 vs UNC65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +1
• PITTL 13-23 vs PITT68% → 4%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• LIBW 45-24 vs LIB94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• GTL 27-30 at GT29% → 19%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts +17
• VTL 31-34 at VT58% → 29%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −29: Timeouts +24, Scoreboard −19
• SCW 28-0 vs SC28% → 100%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +61, Timeouts −1

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.