Wake Forest

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+0.0934th
  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.
  Offense41.9%40th
  Defense50.7%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1920th
  Defense+1.1290th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0530th
  Defense+0.1332nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1958th
  Defense+0.3011th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%50th
  Defense54.7%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%25th
  Defense39.6%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0042nd
  Defense3.1334th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%61st
  Defense15.6%27th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%41st
  Defense12.0%4th

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 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
   NCAT
2. L
   UVA
3. L
   MISS
4. L
   UL
5. W
   NCSU
6. L
   CLEM
7. W
   CONN
8. W
   STAN
9. L
   CAL
10. L
    UNC
11. L
    MIA
12. L
    DUKE

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

Players, 2024

1. Hank BachmeierQB406 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 80th of 232 QBs
   1.22WAR0.54 to 1.90
2. Demond ClaiborneRB231 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 15th of 373 RBs
   0.54WAR0.36 to 0.73
3. Ivan MoraP45 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 4th of 106 punters
   0.20WAR0.09 to 0.32
4. Tate CarneyRB74 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 164th of 373 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
5. Horatio FieldsWR35 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 117th of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Taylor MorinWR60 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 137th of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR−0.05 to 0.25
7. Michael KernQB16 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 215th of 232 QBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Matthew DennisPK19 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 81st of 114 kickers
   0.06WAR0.00 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63563571st of 131Roster talent: 635, 71st of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18018063rd of 131Recruiting: 180, 63rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  33%33%92nd of 130Returning production: 33%, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.7−5.791st of 131SP+ rating: −5.7, 91st 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 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 0.21 of the 0.26 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 NCSUQ4 1:40 4th & 3 at NCSU 26, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.9 pts
2. vs CALQ4 6:39 4th & 10 at WAKE 25, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−5.4 pts
3. at STANQ4 1:48 4th & 4 at STAN 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at MIAQ4 10:42 4th & 2 at WAKE 10, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
5. at CONNQ4 6:30 4th & 3 at CONN 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs DUKEQ4 6:34 4th & 10 at DUKE 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs UVAQ2 1:08 4th & 10 at UVA 30, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
8. vs DUKEQ3 11:12 4th & 3 at WAKE 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

78th of 134 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

   NCAT
2. L

   UVA
3. L

   MISS
4. L

   UL
5. W

   NCSU
6. L

   CLEM
7. W

   CONN
8. W

   STAN
9. L

   CAL
10. L

    UNC
11. L

    MIA
12. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2024

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+0.22
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.58

Game by game

• NCATW 45-13 vs NCAT77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −1
• UVAL 30-31 vs UVA47% → 36%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −3
• MISSL 6-40 vs MISS7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• ULL 38-41 vs UL57% → 21%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −41, Clock −4
• NCSUW 34-30 at NCSU38% → 96%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• CLEML 14-49 vs CLEM7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• CONNW 23-20 at CONN57% → 93%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• STANW 27-24 at STAN50% → 94%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• CALL 36-46 vs CAL29% → 63%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +6, Possession & field position −4
• UNCL 24-31 at UNC21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• MIAL 14-42 at MIA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• DUKEL 17-23 vs DUKE39% → 4%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −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.