Wake Forest

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.3291st
  Defense+0.1236th
• 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.
  Offense48.1%77th
  Defense42.5%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3071st
  Defense+1.1283rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2077th
  Defense−0.0375th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4588th
  Defense+0.2531st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%63rd
  Defense48.0%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.8%96th
  Defense30.0%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1657th
  Defense2.5187th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.2%64th
  Defense27.7%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.0%87th
  Defense14.4%31st

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   AKR
2. W
   PUR
3. L
   MIA
4. W
   LOU
5. W
   STAN
6. W
   NCSU

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

Players, 2026

1. Gio LopezQB183 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 28th of 192 QBs
   0.42WAR0.12 to 0.71
2. Carlos HernandezWR48 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 7th of 364 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.22
3. Deuce LawrenceRB46 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 96th of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
4. Ty Clark IIIRB53 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
5. Jack FoleyWR26 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 65th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
6. Connor CalvertPK8 plays · +0.334 pts/play · 8th of 82 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. Kam ShanksWR16 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 197th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Antonio MeeksWR12 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 215th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68168163rd of 138Roster talent: 681, 63rd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19919952nd of 138Recruiting: 199, 52nd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%111th of 136Returning production: 14%, 111th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.5+10.534th of 138SP+ rating so far: +10.5, 34th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.06 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 LOUQ4 6:20 4th & 2 at LOU 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs MIAQ4 8:51 4th & 5 at MIA 14, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at PURQ3 9:31 4th & 4 at PUR 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at LOUQ4 1:54 4th & 3 at WAKE 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at NCSUQ4 6:57 4th & 1 at WAKE 27, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs AKRQ2 6:53 4th & 3 at AKR 11, up 20Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs AKRQ2 0:05 4th & 3 at AKR 20, up 25Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs MIAQ2 3:54 4th & 4 at WAKE 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

4th of 138 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

   AKR
2. W

   PUR
3. L

   MIA
4. W

   LOU
5. W

   STAN
6. W

   NCSU

What moved it, 2026

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+1.54
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.21
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• AKRW 38-16 vs AKR94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• PURW 38-36 at PUR53% → 88%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +18
• MIAL 20-33 vs MIA8% → 2%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts +1
• LOUW 30-27 at LOU20% → 95%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• STANW 57-3 vs STAN82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• NCSUW 38-14 at NCSU54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +49, 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.