Wake Forest

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−0.025th
  Defense+0.0280th
• 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.
  Offense36.9%3rd
  Defense41.3%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1424th
  Defense+1.1572nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0228th
  Defense−0.0180th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.076th
  Defense+0.0683rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.0%6th
  Defense47.5%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.5%6th
  Defense29.4%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7220th
  Defense2.9155th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%32nd
  Defense20.9%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.6%39th
  Defense19.1%83rd

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 Wake Forest 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
   TULN
2. W
   DUKE
3. W
   DEL
4. W
   IU
5. L
   NCSU
6. W
   SYR
7. L
   FSU
8. L
   ARMY
9. W
   UVA
10. L
    LOU
11. L
    CLEM
12. L
    BC
13. W
    TEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wake Forest.

Players, 2016

1. John WolfordQB404 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 74th of 218 QBs
   1.15WAR0.48 to 1.76
2. Matt ColburnRB157 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 55th of 347 RBs
   0.50WAR0.36 to 0.64
3. Cade CarneyRB147 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 130th of 347 RBs
   0.29WAR0.13 to 0.46
4. Dom MaggioPK65 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 8th of 116 kickers
   0.24WAR0.09 to 0.38
5. Tabari HinesWR51 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 112th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.23
6. Mike WeaverPK22 plays · +0.305 pts/play · 41st of 116 kickers
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.19
7. Cortez LewisWR49 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 220th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
8. Kendall HintonWR23 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 297th of 417 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11

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 Wake Forest'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.
  51851867th of 128Roster talent: 518, 67th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16916960th of 128Recruiting: 169, 60th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%32nd of 128Returning production: 80%, 32nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.6−0.667th of 128SP+ rating: −0.6, 67th 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 Wake Forest's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.29 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 SYRQ4 9:59 4th & 1 at WAKE 11, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at IUQ4 6:44 4th & 1 at midfield, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs UVAQ3 1:58 4th & 2 at UVA 30, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. vs BCQ4 14:53 4th & 1 at WAKE 24, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at IUQ3 2:22 4th & 2 at IU 12, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at IUQ4 9:41 4th & 4 at IU 43, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs ARMYQ2 14:20 4th & 1 at WAKE 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. vs SYRQ3 6:16 4th & 2 at WAKE 44, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

23rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Wake Forest's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   TULN
2. W

   DUKE
3. W

   DEL
4. W

   IU
5. L

   NCSU
6. W

   SYR
7. L

   FSU
8. L

   ARMY
9. W

   UVA
10. L

    LOU
11. L

    CLEM
12. L

    BC
13. W

    TEM

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Wake Forest'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+0.91
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• TULNW 7-3 vs TULN88% → 94%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• DUKEW 24-14 at DUKE26% → 95%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +56, Clock +4
• DELW 38-21 vs DEL95% → 98%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +10
• IUW 33-28 at IU40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• NCSUL 16-33 at NCSU29% → 2%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• SYRW 28-9 vs SYR56% → 98%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position −1
• FSUL 6-17 at FSU5% → 4%Before kickoff −45 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −12, Possession & field position +1
• ARMYL 13-21 vs ARMY73% → 3%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• UVAW 27-20 vs UVA58% → 97%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• LOUL 12-44 at LOU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• CLEML 13-35 vs CLEM6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• BCL 14-17 vs BC56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• TEMW 34-26 vs TEM21% → 97%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +3

Points of win probability, from Wake Forest's side.

Closest call

LOU 34-37 WAKE (2021) - Wake Forest dropped to a 6.8% win probability before pulling it out.