West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1250th
  Defense+0.1721st
• 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.
  Offense43.3%55th
  Defense44.3%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2341st
  Defense+1.3128th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1154th
  Defense+0.1033rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2143rd
  Defense+0.2631st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%45th
  Defense49.5%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.3%75th
  Defense32.2%32nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0849th
  Defense3.0845th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%44th
  Defense18.0%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%63rd
  Defense14.7%28th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

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

Players, 2022

1. JT DanielsQB281 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 105th of 234 QBs
   0.69WAR0.08 to 1.30
2. Garrett GreeneQB91 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 131st of 234 QBs
   0.43WAR0.22 to 0.64
3. Justin Johnson Jr.RB87 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 141st of 384 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.29
4. Sam JamesWR50 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 54th of 455 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.29
5. CJ Donaldson JrRB77 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 158th of 384 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.27
6. Kaden PratherWR47 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 69th of 455 WRs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.25
7. Bryce Ford-WheatonWR66 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 80th of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.31
8. Tony Mathis Jr.RB110 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 181st of 384 RBs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.27

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66366343rd of 129Roster talent: 663, 43rd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19919936th of 129Recruiting: 199, 36th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  19%19%123rd of 128Returning production: 19%, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.4+2.462nd of 129SP+ rating: +2.4, 62nd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.21 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 KUQ4 0:00 4th & 5 at WVU 20, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−5.0 pts
2. at OKSTQ4 5:59 4th & 2 at OKST 16, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. at PITTQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at PITT 7, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. at ISUQ3 1:22 4th & 1 at WVU 33, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. vs KUQ4 4:04 4th & 11 at KU 11, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
6. vs OUQ4 12:25 4th & 10 at OU 31, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. at VTQ4 10:16 4th & 2 at VT 21, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at VTQ2 1:50 4th & 3 at VT 18, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

62nd of 131 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

   PITT
2. L

   KU
3. W

   TOW
4. W

   VT
5. L

   TEX
6. W

   BAY
7. L

   TTU
8. L

   TCU
9. L

   ISU
10. W

    OU
11. L

    KSU
12. W

    OKST

What moved it, 2022

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−0.07
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.05
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.70

Game by game

• PITTL 31-38 at PITT31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• KUL 42-55 vs KU79% → 92%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −2
• TOWW 65-7 vs TOW99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• VTW 33-10 at VT54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• TEXL 20-38 at TEX24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
• BAYW 43-40 vs BAY42% → 80%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position +3
• TTUL 10-48 at TTU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33
• TCUL 31-41 vs TCU26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• ISUL 14-31 at ISU31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +2
• OUW 23-20 vs OU26% → 96%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• KSUL 31-48 vs KSU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• OKSTW 24-19 at OKST28% → 96%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +59, 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.