West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.0110th
  Defense+0.1049th
• 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.
  Offense36.8%11th
  Defense40.5%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2347th
  Defense+1.378th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.057th
  Defense−0.0588th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0716th
  Defense+0.2916th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.6%6th
  Defense44.2%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.9%15th
  Defense33.2%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6613th
  Defense2.4295th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%24th
  Defense22.6%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%39th
  Defense17.7%81st

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   RMU
2. L
   OHIO
3. W
   PITT
4. L
   KU
5. L
   UTAH
6. L
   BYU
7. L
   UCF
8. L
   TCU
9. W
   HOU
10. W
    COLO
11. L
    ASU
12. L
    TTU

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

Players, 2025

1. Scotty Fox Jr.QB209 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 116th of 231 QBs
   0.64WAR0.16 to 1.04
2. Nicco MarchiolQB99 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 158th of 231 QBs
   0.27WAR0.09 to 0.44
3. Khalil WilkinsQB43 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 174th of 231 QBs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.26
4. Diore HubbardRB84 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 182nd of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
5. Cyncir BowersRB64 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 217th of 365 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. Cam VaughnWR47 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 235th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.03 to 0.18
7. Kade HensleyPK11 plays · +0.330 pts/play · 77th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
8. Jeff WeimerWR30 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 268th of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66266263rd of 134Roster talent: 662, 63rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20420438th of 134Recruiting: 204, 38th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  18%18%103rd of 132Returning production: 18%, 103rd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.8−6.891st of 134SP+ rating: −6.8, 91st of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.11 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 PITTQ4 5:03 4th & 3 at PITT 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. at OHIOQ3 0:16 4th & 3 at WVU 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at HOUQ4 8:58 4th & 9 at WVU 30, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
4. at UCFQ2 0:56 4th & 7 at WVU 35, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
5. at BYUQ2 2:07 4th & 3 at WVU 44, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at HOUQ3 12:14 4th & 6 at HOU 32, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs UTAHQ2 4:56 4th & 2 at WVU 39, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs UTAHQ2 4:56 4th & 2 at WVU 39, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

70th of 136 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

   RMU
2. L

   OHIO
3. W

   PITT
4. L

   KU
5. L

   UTAH
6. L

   BYU
7. L

   UCF
8. L

   TCU
9. W

   HOU
10. W

    COLO
11. L

    ASU
12. L

    TTU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.10
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.77

Game by game

• RMUW 45-3 vs RMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• OHIOL 10-17 at OHIO62% → 6%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −6
• PITTW 31-24 vs PITT29% → 50%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +21: Scoreboard −12, Clock −3
• KUL 10-41 at KU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• UTAHL 14-48 vs UTAH20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26
• BYUL 24-38 at BYU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• UCFL 13-45 at UCF35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +1
• TCUL 17-23 vs TCU12% → 6%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −25, Clock −2
• HOUW 45-35 at HOU16% → 96%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +60, Clock +4
• COLOW 29-22 vs COLO69% → 97%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• ASUL 23-25 at ASU21% → 5%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• TTUL 0-49 vs TTU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10

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.