Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0418th
  Defense+0.2117th
• 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.
  Offense40.0%23rd
  Defense42.6%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2123rd
  Defense+1.3035th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1465th
  Defense+0.1621st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.028th
  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.
  Offense47.0%36th
  Defense47.7%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.0%14th
  Defense31.5%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2983rd
  Defense3.2917th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.2%96th
  Defense13.3%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%21st
  Defense14.5%29th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. W
   WAKE
3. L
   MD
4. W
   CCU
5. W
   BC
6. L
   LOU
7. L
   CLEM
8. L
   UNC
9. W
   PITT
10. L
    ND
11. L
    SMU
12. L
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Virginia.

Players, 2024

1. Anthony ColandreaQB358 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 92nd of 232 QBs
   0.97WAR0.41 to 1.51
2. Xavier BrownRB71 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 150th of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.24
3. Malachi FieldsWR45 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 78th of 452 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.26
4. Kobe PaceRB104 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 195th of 373 RBs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.23
5. Tony MuskettQB38 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 199th of 232 QBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.20
6. Daniel SparksP49 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 18th of 106 punters
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.20
7. Tyler NevilleTE31 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 23rd of 221 TEs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
8. Will BettridgePK17 plays · +0.320 pts/play · 30th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66266261st of 131Roster talent: 662, 61st of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17817866th of 131Recruiting: 178, 66th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%33rd of 130Returning production: 62%, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.1−5.189th of 131SP+ rating: −5.1, 89th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.11 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 CCUQ3 12:27 4th & 1 at CCU 28, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.8 pts
2. vs SMUQ3 4:38 4th & 8 at SMU 18, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.0 pts
3. at VTQ2 2:46 4th & 2 at VT 19, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
4. at CCUQ2 11:14 4th & 2 at CCU 6, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
5. vs MDQ4 5:09 4th & 10 at MD 37, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
6. vs MDQ2 8:27 4th & 3 at MD 12, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
7. at WAKEQ1 5:39 4th & 1 at WAKE 1, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
8. vs MDQ1 0:50 4th & 2 at MD 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

59th of 134 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. W

   WAKE
3. L

   MD
4. W

   CCU
5. W

   BC
6. L

   LOU
7. L

   CLEM
8. L

   UNC
9. W

   PITT
10. L

    ND
11. L

    SMU
12. L

    VT

What moved it, 2024

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−0.44
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• RICHW 34-13 vs RICH70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• WAKEW 31-30 at WAKE53% → 64%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +3
• MDL 13-27 vs MD54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• CCUW 43-24 at CCU62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• BCW 24-14 vs BC54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +1
• LOUL 20-24 vs LOU36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• CLEML 31-48 at CLEM8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts +1
• UNCL 14-41 vs UNC58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• PITTW 24-19 at PITT29% → 94%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• NDL 14-35 at ND8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12, Clock +1
• SMUL 7-33 vs SMU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27
• VTL 17-37 at VT34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, 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.