West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1971st
  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.
  Offense44.5%68th
  Defense42.4%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3068th
  Defense+1.3030th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2189th
  Defense+0.1330th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2248th
  Defense+0.1962nd
• 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%64th
  Defense48.0%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%80th
  Defense30.5%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1964th
  Defense3.1538th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%36th
  Defense16.9%49th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%88th
  Defense18.7%84th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   PSU
2. W
   DUQ
3. W
   PITT
4. W
   TTU
5. W
   TCU
6. L
   HOU
7. L
   OKST
8. W
   UCF
9. W
   BYU
10. L
    OU
11. W
    CIN
12. W
    BAY
13. W
    UNC

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

Players, 2023

1. Garrett GreeneQB298 plays · +0.357 pts/play · 20th of 250 QBs
   1.99WAR1.32 to 2.64
2. CJ Donaldson JrRB132 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 48th of 383 RBs
   0.37WAR0.23 to 0.51
3. Jahiem WhiteRB75 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 151st of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.25
4. Oliver StrawP34 plays · +0.281 pts/play · 11th of 103 punters
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.26
5. Nicco MarchiolQB55 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 206th of 250 QBs
   0.13WAR0.00 to 0.26
6. Michael Hayes IIPK17 plays · +0.316 pts/play · 33rd of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Devin CarterWR23 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 216th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Kole TaylorTE33 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 75th of 212 TEs
   0.08WAR0.01 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66666650th of 130Roster talent: 666, 50th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20120135th of 130Recruiting: 201, 35th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%99th of 128Returning production: 35%, 99th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.5+7.537th of 130SP+ rating: +7.5, 37th 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, 2023

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 0.12 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 TCUQ4 3:00 4th & 1 at WVU 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.9 pts
2. vs TTUQ3 10:43 4th & 1 at WVU 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs OKSTQ4 0:42 4th & 5 at OKST 12, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
4. vs PITTQ2 11:07 4th & 4 at PITT 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs PITTQ3 1:57 4th & 4 at PITT 24, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at OUQ2 0:26 4th & 9 at OU 31, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs OKSTQ2 8:49 4th & 3 at OKST 16, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs PITTQ4 1:12 4th & 12 at PITT 15, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

13th of 133 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

   PSU
2. W

   DUQ
3. W

   PITT
4. W

   TTU
5. W

   TCU
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   OKST
8. W

   UCF
9. W

   BYU
10. L

    OU
11. W

    CIN
12. W

    BAY
13. W

    UNC

What moved it, 2023

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+1.95
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.14

Game by game

• PSUL 15-38 at PSU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• DUQW 56-17 vs DUQ99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• PITTW 17-6 vs PITT54% → 97%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• TTUW 20-13 vs TTU30% → 96%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +1
• TCUW 24-21 at TCU20% → 94%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• HOUL 39-41 at HOU58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• OKSTL 34-48 vs OKST59% → 2%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• UCFW 41-28 at UCF29% → 99%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• BYUW 37-7 vs BYU82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• OUL 20-59 at OU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19
• CINW 42-21 vs CIN68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• BAYW 34-31 at BAY70% → 74%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• UNCW 30-10 vs UNC54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +41, Clock +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.