West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1669th
  Defense+0.0958th
• 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.
  Offense45.1%65th
  Defense42.1%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2256th
  Defense+1.1379th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1469th
  Defense+0.0366th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2059th
  Defense+0.1747th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.0%57th
  Defense48.2%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.5%73rd
  Defense30.2%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2386th
  Defense3.1320th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%65th
  Defense18.0%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%91st
  Defense14.5%21st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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
   MIZ
2. W
   YSU
3. W
   BYU
4. W
   KSU
5. W
   TTU
6. W
   TCU
7. L
   OKST
8. W
   KU
9. W
   TEX
10. L
    OU
11. W
    ISU
12. W
    BAY
13. L
    MIA

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

Players, 2016

1. Skyler HowardQB427 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 37th of 218 QBs
   1.70WAR0.99 to 2.35
2. Justin CrawfordRB139 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 61st of 347 RBs
   0.46WAR0.32 to 0.61
3. Daikiel ShortsWR59 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 68th of 417 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
4. Rushel ShellRB92 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 200th of 347 RBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
5. Kennedy McKoyRB58 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 201st of 347 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
6. Shelton GibsonWR50 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 130th of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
7. Ka'Raun WhiteWR51 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 141st of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
8. Jovon DuranteWR41 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 330th of 417 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.11

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65565531st of 128Roster talent: 655, 31st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619638th of 128Recruiting: 196, 38th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%53rd of 128Returning production: 71%, 53rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.3+11.332nd of 128SP+ rating: +11.3, 32nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 BAYQ4 0:53 4th & 4 at BAY 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.3 pts
2. at TEXQ4 5:25 4th & 1 at WVU 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
3. at OKSTQ4 8:58 4th & 4 at OKST 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. at TEXQ4 1:25 4th & 2 at WVU 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs MIZQ3 1:37 4th & 1 at WVU 29, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at MIAQ2 14:11 4th & 2 at MIA 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs MIZQ2 6:56 4th & 3 at WVU 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at TTUQ3 6:04 4th & 4 at TTU 5, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

24th of 128 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

   MIZ
2. W

   YSU
3. W

   BYU
4. W

   KSU
5. W

   TTU
6. W

   TCU
7. L

   OKST
8. W

   KU
9. W

   TEX
10. L

    OU
11. W

    ISU
12. W

    BAY
13. L

    MIA

What moved it, 2016

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+1.46
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.50

Game by game

• MIZW 26-11 vs MIZ78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26
• YSUW 38-21 vs YSU96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +10
• BYUW 35-32 vs BYU61% → 90%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• KSUW 17-16 vs KSU66% → 92%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position −1
• TTUW 48-17 at TTU46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +56
• TCUW 34-10 vs TCU67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• OKSTL 20-37 at OKST59% → 2%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts +1
• KUW 48-21 vs KU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• TEXW 24-20 at TEX47% → 82%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• OUL 28-56 vs OU40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Possession & field position +1
• ISUW 49-19 at ISU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +31
• BAYW 24-21 vs BAY83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• MIAL 14-31 at MIA42% → 1%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts +1

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.