Wake Forest

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0838th
  Defense−0.0593rd
• 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.
  Offense38.4%18th
  Defense35.1%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4397th
  Defense+1.1969th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0852nd
  Defense−0.0691st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1444th
  Defense0.0092nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.6%15th
  Defense40.8%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.0%31st
  Defense25.0%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7926th
  Defense2.4994th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%55th
  Defense26.6%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%49th
  Defense18.2%85th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   KENN
2. W
   WCU
3. L
   NCSU
4. L
   GT
5. W
   VT
6. W
   ORST
7. W
   SMU
8. L
   FSU
9. W
   UVA
10. W
    UNC
11. W
    DEL
12. L
    DUKE
13. W
    MSST

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

Players, 2025

1. Robby AshfordQB383 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 58th of 231 QBs
   1.30WAR0.55 to 1.99
2. Demond ClaiborneRB180 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 79th of 365 RBs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.35
3. Deshawn PurdieQB68 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 163rd of 231 QBs
   0.24WAR0.08 to 0.41
4. Ty Clark IIIRB76 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 144th of 365 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
5. Connor CalvertPK18 plays · +0.338 pts/play · 19th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Carlos HernandezWR58 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 207th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.21
7. Eni FalayiTE27 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 60th of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Micah Mays Jr.WR35 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 287th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.12

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62762774th of 134Roster talent: 627, 74th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18618660th of 134Recruiting: 186, 60th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%78th of 132Returning production: 26%, 78th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.7+5.751st of 134SP+ rating: +5.7, 51st of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.14 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 KENNQ3 3:05 4th & 3 at KENN 5, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs UNCQ4 6:51 4th & 1 at WAKE 42, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at UVAQ2 2:34 4th & 1 at WAKE 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at MSSTQ2 1:47 4th & 10 at MSST 35, up 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. at ORSTQ2 14:09 4th & 2 at WAKE 49, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at ORSTQ3 9:03 4th & 2 at ORST 40, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs SMUQ2 6:42 4th & 3 at SMU 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at ORSTQ2 2:49 4th & 15 at ORST 37, up 22Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

7th of 136 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

   KENN
2. W

   WCU
3. L

   NCSU
4. L

   GT
5. W

   VT
6. W

   ORST
7. W

   SMU
8. L

   FSU
9. W

   UVA
10. W

    UNC
11. W

    DEL
12. L

    DUKE
13. W

    MSST

What moved it, 2025

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+2.17
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.56

Game by game

• KENNW 10-9 vs KENN91% → 87%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −4: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts −2
• WCUW 42-10 vs WCU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• NCSUL 24-34 vs NCSU28% → 3%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• GTL 29-30 vs GT16% → 46%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +31: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position +4
• VTW 30-23 at VT35% → 96%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• ORSTW 39-14 at ORST53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, Clock +1
• SMUW 13-12 vs SMU34% → 94%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position +2
• FSUL 7-42 at FSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• UVAW 16-9 at UVA32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• UNCW 28-12 vs UNC61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• DELW 52-14 vs DEL90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• DUKEL 32-49 at DUKE43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −1
• MSSTW 43-29 at MSST39% → 99%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +58, 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.