West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0115th
  Defense+0.1339th
• 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.
  Offense37.3%7th
  Defense46.7%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2671st
  Defense+1.0891st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.171st
  Defense+0.1324th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1232nd
  Defense+0.1557th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.4%3rd
  Defense52.2%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%40th
  Defense33.9%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.102nd
  Defense3.0925th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.1%2nd
  Defense18.7%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense27.1%2nd
  Defense20.4%55th

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, 2019

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

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

Players, 2019

1. Austin KendallQB273 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 98th of 228 QBs
   0.74WAR0.27 to 1.17
2. Jarret DoegeQB113 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 140th of 228 QBs
   0.41WAR0.20 to 0.65
3. Kennedy McKoyRB129 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 150th of 349 RBs
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.39
4. Leddie BrownRB105 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 156th of 349 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.34
5. Evan StaleyPK17 plays · +0.448 pts/play · 36th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
6. Josh GrowdenP52 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 20th of 100 punters
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17
7. Martell PettawayRB25 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 267th of 349 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.11
8. T.J. SimmonsWR41 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 231st of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63963941st of 130Roster talent: 639, 41st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19219243rd of 130Recruiting: 192, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%123rd of 130Returning production: 27%, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.0−7.097th of 130SP+ rating: −7.0, 97th of 130 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, 2019

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 0.08 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. at TCUQ4 0:46 4th & 8 at TCU 31, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.7 pts
2. at KUQ4 0:38 4th & 7 at KU 34, up 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
3. vs OKSTQ3 10:47 4th & 1 at WVU 31, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at KSUQ3 7:56 4th & 1 at WVU 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs TEXQ3 3:25 4th & 3 at WVU 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs NCSUQ3 10:42 4th & 4 at NCSU 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at KUQ2 5:34 4th & 3 at KU 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at KUQ2 8:39 4th & 11 at KU 30, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

22nd 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. W

   JMU
2. L

   MIZ
3. W

   NCSU
4. W

   KU
5. L

   TEX
6. L

   ISU
7. L

   OU
8. L

   BAY
9. L

   TTU
10. W

    KSU
11. L

    OKST
12. W

    TCU

What moved it, 2019

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+0.42
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.05

Game by game

• JMUW 20-13 vs JMU73% → 93%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +2
• MIZL 7-38 at MIZ16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• NCSUW 44-27 vs NCSU30% → 99%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +2
• KUW 29-24 at KU60% → 89%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• TEXL 31-42 vs TEX18% → 4%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• ISUL 14-38 vs ISU24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• OUL 14-52 at OU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• BAYL 14-17 at BAY10% → 12%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• TTUL 17-38 vs TTU40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• KSUW 24-20 at KSU17% → 94%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +55, Clock +4
• OKSTL 13-20 vs OKST32% → 6%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• TCUW 20-17 at TCU15% → 95%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3

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.