Wake Forest

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.
  Offense+0.1878th
  Defense+0.0853rd
• 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.
  Offense44.7%65th
  Defense42.5%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1946th
  Defense+1.2727th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0759th
  Defense+0.0842nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3694th
  Defense+0.0962nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%54th
  Defense47.8%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.7%84th
  Defense32.6%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9558th
  Defense2.4887th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%54th
  Defense24.3%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%76th
  Defense18.9%79th

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 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
   PRES
2. W
   BC
3. W
   USU
4. W
   APP
5. L
   FSU
6. L
   CLEM
7. L
   GT
8. W
   LOU
9. L
   ND
10. W
    SYR
11. W
    NCSU
12. L
    DUKE
13. W
    TA&M

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

Players, 2017

1. John WolfordQB438 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 20th of 226 QBs
   1.87WAR1.07 to 2.65
2. Matt ColburnRB140 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 50th of 352 RBs
   0.41WAR0.32 to 0.52
3. Tabari HinesWR60 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 94th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
4. Mike WeaverPK19 plays · +0.406 pts/play · 22nd of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
5. Greg DortchWR58 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 118th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
6. Scotty WashingtonWR62 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 141st of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
7. Cam SerigneTE50 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 2nd of 199 TEs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
8. Cade CarneyRB44 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 252nd of 352 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52752766th of 130Roster talent: 527, 66th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16716763rd of 130Recruiting: 167, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  109%109%1st of 128Returning production: 109%, 1st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.5+10.531st of 128SP+ rating: +10.5, 31st 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 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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.20 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 GTQ3 12:55 4th & 1 at WAKE 44, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. vs DUKEQ4 13:53 4th & 1 at WAKE 34, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at TA&MQ3 11:09 4th & 1 at WAKE 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs FSUQ2 0:19 4th & 11 at FSU 40, down 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
5. at SYRQ2 1:09 4th & 1 at WAKE 44, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at TA&MQ2 8:21 4th & 2 at TA&M 25, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs USUQ2 14:14 4th & 1 at USU 13, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs DUKEQ3 9:19 4th & 2 at DUKE 23, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

37th of 130 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

   PRES
2. W

   BC
3. W

   USU
4. W

   APP
5. L

   FSU
6. L

   CLEM
7. L

   GT
8. W

   LOU
9. L

   ND
10. W

    SYR
11. W

    NCSU
12. L

    DUKE
13. W

    TA&M

What moved it, 2017

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+0.90
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• PRESW 51-7 vs PRES99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BCW 34-10 at BC56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +49, Clock +1
• USUW 46-10 vs USU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• APPW 20-19 at APP70% → 92%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• FSUL 19-26 vs FSU31% → 15%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• CLEML 14-28 at CLEM12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• GTL 24-38 at GT48% → 1%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −44
• LOUW 42-32 vs LOU45% → 97%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +1
• NDL 37-48 at ND16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −21
• SYRW 64-43 at SYR60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• NCSUW 30-24 vs NCSU61% → 96%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +3
• DUKEL 23-31 vs DUKE77% → 3%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −60, Clock −4
• TA&MW 55-52 at TA&M62% → 95%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2

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.