Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0733rd
  Defense+0.2014th
• 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.
  Offense40.9%38th
  Defense45.2%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2229th
  Defense+1.2264th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0225th
  Defense+0.1714th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2449th
  Defense+0.3022nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%40th
  Defense51.2%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%41st
  Defense30.1%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9628th
  Defense3.3713th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.5%61st
  Defense14.4%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%18th
  Defense14.9%20th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TENN
2. L
   JMU
3. L
   MD
4. L
   NCSU
5. L
   BC
6. W
   W&M
7. W
   UNC
8. L
   MIA
9. L
   GT
10. L
    LOU
11. W
    DUKE
12. L
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Virginia.

Players, 2023

1. Anthony ColandreaQB260 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 73rd of 250 QBs
   1.24WAR0.68 to 1.83
2. Tony MuskettQB151 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 127th of 250 QBs
   0.50WAR0.21 to 0.82
3. Malik WashingtonWR105 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 3rd of 457 WRs
   0.44WAR0.24 to 0.69
4. Malachi FieldsWR68 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 59th of 457 WRs
   0.22WAR0.09 to 0.35
5. Daniel SparksP57 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 24th of 103 punters
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.24
6. Kobe PaceRB116 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 204th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
7. Perris JonesRB61 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 211th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.16
8. Mike HollinsRB88 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 211th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.19

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62362366th of 130Roster talent: 623, 66th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18518558th of 130Recruiting: 185, 58th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  21%21%116th of 128Returning production: 21%, 116th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.8−10.8103rd of 130SP+ rating: −10.8, 103rd 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, 2023

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.24 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 MIAQ4 4:20 4th & 2 at MIA 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. at BCQ4 9:53 4th & 4 at BC 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
3. vs NCSUQ3 2:24 4th & 1 at NCSU 19, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
4. vs VTQ2 0:02 4th & 29 at VT 37, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.9 pts
5. vs NCSUQ3 6:48 4th & 3 at NCSU 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. at BCQ3 7:41 4th & 2 at UVA 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs JMUQ4 0:26 4th & 20 at UVA 15, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at UNCQ3 0:32 4th & 4 at UNC 27, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

82nd of 133 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

   TENN
2. L

   JMU
3. L

   MD
4. L

   NCSU
5. L

   BC
6. W

   W&M
7. W

   UNC
8. L

   MIA
9. L

   GT
10. L

    LOU
11. W

    DUKE
12. L

    VT

What moved it, 2023

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−1.00
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.43

Game by game

• TENNL 13-49 at TENN3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• JMUL 35-36 vs JMU41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Possession & field position −2
• MDL 14-42 at MD10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• NCSUL 21-24 vs NCSU27% → 5%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• BCL 24-27 at BC37% → 5%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• W&MW 27-13 vs W&M74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• UNCW 31-27 at UNC5% → 95%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +90: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• MIAL 26-29 at MIA8% → 68%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +17
• GTL 17-45 vs GT53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −54
• LOUL 24-31 at LOU9% → 3%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −15
• DUKEW 30-27 vs DUKE33% → 96%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• VTL 17-55 vs VT40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45

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.