West Virginia

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+0.1551st
  Defense+0.2312th
• 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.
  Offense42.9%48th
  Defense46.5%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3177th
  Defense+1.3030th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1666th
  Defense+0.0744th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1429th
  Defense+0.472nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.0%27th
  Defense52.8%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.2%70th
  Defense31.6%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1455th
  Defense2.9149th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%69th
  Defense22.2%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.7%75th
  Defense15.6%46th

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 West Virginia 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
   CCU
2. W
   UTM
3. W
   UVA
4. L
   OKST
5. L
   ISU
6. L
   ARIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for West Virginia.

Players, 2026

1. Michael Hawkins Jr.QB188 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 1st of 192 QBs
   0.80WAR0.37 to 1.21
2. Cam CookRB138 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 1st of 320 RBs
   0.35WAR0.22 to 0.47
3. DJ EppsWR26 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 164th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
4. Jaden BrayWR16 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 175th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
5. John NeiderWR12 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05
6. Bryan HansenP18 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 19th of 84 punters
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05
7. Ryan WardTE3 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 West Virginia'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.
  70870849th of 138Roster talent: 708, 49th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20920941st of 138Recruiting: 209, 41st of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%112th of 136Returning production: 14%, 112th 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.
  −0.6−0.673rd of 138SP+ rating so far: −0.6, 73rd 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 West Virginia's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 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 UVAQ3 5:12 4th & 1 at WVU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs ARIZQ3 10:08 4th & 21 at ARIZ 38, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
3. at ISUQ2 2:23 4th & 2 at WVU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs OKSTQ4 4:33 4th & 5 at OKST 43, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at UVAQ4 1:57 4th & 3 at UVA 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at ISUQ1 0:43 4th & 3 at WVU 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs CCUQ3 11:10 4th & 2 at WVU 25, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs CCUQ1 8:50 4th & 1 at WVU 11, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

100th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   CCU
2. W

   UTM
3. W

   UVA
4. L

   OKST
5. L

   ISU
6. L

   ARIZ

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at West Virginia'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−0.57
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• CCUW 31-24 vs CCU92% → 98%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13
• UTMW 52-7 vs UTM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UVAW 38-27 at UVA27% → 98%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +60, Clock +4
• OKSTL 24-41 vs OKST58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• ISUL 42-45 at ISU45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• ARIZL 31-52 vs ARIZ35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from West Virginia's side.

Closest call

WVU 37-34 TTU (2014) - West Virginia dropped to a 5.1% win probability before pulling it out.