West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1674th
  Defense+0.1147th
• 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.
  Offense44.3%63rd
  Defense40.8%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2677th
  Defense+1.2821st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0233rd
  Defense+0.1227th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2982nd
  Defense+0.1254th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.8%88th
  Defense46.1%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.9%9th
  Defense30.3%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0172nd
  Defense2.8552nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.2%88th
  Defense22.7%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%54th
  Defense17.2%60th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   VT
2. W
   ECU
3. W
   DSU
4. W
   KU
5. L
   TCU
6. W
   TTU
7. W
   BAY
8. L
   OKST
9. W
   ISU
10. W
    KSU
11. L
    TEX
12. L
    OU
13. L
    UTAH

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

Players, 2017

1. Will GrierQB376 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 25th of 226 QBs
   1.81WAR1.06 to 2.56
2. Justin CrawfordRB166 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 25th of 352 RBs
   0.53WAR0.37 to 0.68
3. Kennedy McKoyRB103 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 110th of 352 RBs
   0.28WAR0.20 to 0.35
4. Ka'Raun WhiteWR77 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 12th of 426 WRs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.36
5. Gary JenningsWR116 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 18th of 426 WRs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.35
6. Chris ChugunovQB61 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 174th of 226 QBs
   0.21WAR0.10 to 0.32
7. David Sills VWR81 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 38th of 426 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.28
8. Marcus SimmsWR47 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 170th of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61361343rd of 130Roster talent: 613, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19119143rd of 130Recruiting: 191, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%116th of 128Returning production: 28%, 116th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.6+5.649th of 128SP+ rating: +5.6, 49th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.15 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 KSUQ4 7:41 4th & 5 at KSU 43, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs TEXQ4 9:01 4th & 5 at TEX 12, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
3. vs TTUQ3 11:16 4th & 2 at TTU 48, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs ISUQ3 0:58 4th & 2 at WVU 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at VTQ2 3:22 4th & 1 at WVU 12, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs ISUQ1 4:58 4th & 2 at ISU 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at KSUQ3 9:19 4th & 2 at WVU 28, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs TEXQ4 14:20 4th & 9 at TEX 24, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

65th of 130 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. L

   VT
2. W

   ECU
3. W

   DSU
4. W

   KU
5. L

   TCU
6. W

   TTU
7. W

   BAY
8. L

   OKST
9. W

   ISU
10. W

    KSU
11. L

    TEX
12. L

    OU
13. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2017

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−0.10
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.02

Game by game

• VTL 24-31 at VT38% → 10%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• ECUW 56-20 vs ECU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• DSUW 59-16 vs DSU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0
• KUW 56-34 at KU93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +13
• TCUL 24-31 at TCU15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• TTUW 46-35 vs TTU64% → 98%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34
• BAYW 38-36 at BAY75% → 93%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• OKSTL 39-50 vs OKST23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• ISUW 20-16 vs ISU53% → 96%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +3
• KSUW 28-23 at KSU55% → 91%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Possession & field position +2
• TEXL 14-28 vs TEX54% → 2%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −53, Clock −2
• OUL 31-59 at OU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• UTAHL 14-30 vs UTAH30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −38, 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.