West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0938th
  Defense+0.0287th
• 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.
  Offense40.2%29th
  Defense37.2%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2860th
  Defense+1.1878th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0028th
  Defense+0.0361st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1649th
  Defense0.0092nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.8%19th
  Defense41.1%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%60th
  Defense29.1%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5113th
  Defense2.4987th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%44th
  Defense22.7%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%21st
  Defense18.7%81st

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   EKU
2. L
   OKST
3. W
   BAY
4. W
   KU
5. L
   TTU
6. W
   KSU
7. L
   TEX
8. W
   TCU
9. L
   ISU
10. W
    ARMY

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

Players, 2020

1. Jarret DoegeQB340 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 40th of 212 QBs
   0.78WAR0.17 to 1.38
2. Leddie BrownRB204 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 9th of 338 RBs
   0.65WAR0.49 to 0.81
3. Alec SinkfieldRB51 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 233rd of 338 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
4. Winston Wright Jr.WR55 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 100th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
5. T.J. SimmonsWR29 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 122nd of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
6. Bryce Ford-WheatonWR41 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 156th of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
7. Sean RyanWR32 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 185th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Tyler SumpterPK35 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 13th of 97 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63163144th of 127Roster talent: 631, 44th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419444th of 127Recruiting: 194, 44th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%12th of 127Returning production: 88%, 12th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.5+8.533rd of 127SP+ rating: +8.5, 33rd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.05 of the 0.08 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 9:00 4th & 3 at BAY 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at TEXQ3 10:11 4th & 2 at TEX 9, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs BAYQ4 12:12 4th & 3 at WVU 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs KSUQ3 3:34 4th & 1 at WVU 43, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs KSUQ1 3:06 4th & 2 at KSU 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at TTUQ2 0:14 4th & 1 at TTU 42, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at TTUQ3 4:44 4th & 6 at TTU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs BAYQ2 3:05 4th & 7 at WVU 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

66th of 127 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

   EKU
2. L

   OKST
3. W

   BAY
4. W

   KU
5. L

   TTU
6. W

   KSU
7. L

   TEX
8. W

   TCU
9. L

   ISU
10. W

    ARMY

What moved it, 2020

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+0.28
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.30

Game by game

• EKUW 56-10 vs EKU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• OKSTL 13-27 at OKST36% → 2%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position −1
• BAYW 27-21 vs BAY51% → 84%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts −24
• KUW 38-17 vs KU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• TTUL 27-34 at TTU62% → 11%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• KSUW 37-10 vs KSU68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +34
• TEXL 13-17 at TEX31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• TCUW 24-6 vs TCU61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• ISUL 6-42 at ISU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −36
• ARMYW 24-21 at ARMY78% → 93%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +33, 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.