Week 9 2025 · October 24, 2025
California at Virginia Tech, Week 9 2025: who deserved to win?
Virginia Tech beat California 42–34, and the replays back it up: with the way both teams actually played, Virginia Tech wins 10 of 10. California had the bounces: kicks alone were worth 13 points of win probability to California.
An off day for California: its offense played far below its usual level. In a fresh game against Virginia Tech it would win 33% of the time; with this day’s form, 3%. The numbers
Before kickoff Virginia Tech was a 65% favorite. The biggest swing (Q4, 2:48 left): Roughing the Passer on Virginia Tech, 3 yards, wiping out the play, worth 26 points of win probability to California.
Final (OT)
 California Golden Bears | 34 |
|---|---|
 Virginia Tech Hokies | 42 |
Replay with same day's form
Luck index +3 Virginia Tech about even · −3 California
Each team’s own plays from this game, resampled into new drives 4,000 times: with the way both teams actually played, how often does this performance win? How the replay works
Ten replays. California wins 0, Virginia Tech wins 10.
- 1 CAL 30 VT 35
- 2 CAL 24 VT 34
- 3 CAL 19 VT 33
- 4 CAL 10 VT 28
- 5 CAL 14 VT 35
- 6 CAL 14 VT 38
- 7 CAL 14 VT 42
- 8 CAL 7 VT 38
- 9 CAL 7 VT 43
- 10 CAL 7 VT 51
Three other ways to ask
Each answers a different question, so none of them replaces the replay above.
Before kickoff
The closing betting line, turned into a probability. What everyone knew before the game.
Same teams, fresh game
The line plus what this game showed, weighted by how much one game can tell. It stays close to the line because one game says little.
Only coin-flips re-rolled
Every kick, fumble bounce, conversion and judgment call redrawn; everything else fixed. The narrowest view of luck.
An off day for California
Its offense played far below its usual level. In a fresh game against Virginia Tech it would win 33% of the time; with this day’s form, 3%.
Same teams, fresh game
Replay with same day's form
30 points apart for California: the gap is how differently this game went from what the two teams usually are.
| Unit | This game | Usual level | Better or worse than usual |
|---|---|---|---|
| California offenseEPA per play gained | −0.07 | +0.07 | worse by 0.14 |
| California defenseEPA per play allowed | +0.10 | +0.05 | worse by 0.05 |
| Virginia Tech offenseEPA per play gained | +0.10 | +0.05 | better by 0.05 |
| Virginia Tech defenseEPA per play allowed | −0.07 | +0.13 | better by 0.20 |
EPA (expected points added) per play on competitive snaps, turnovers left out because they are valued as luck. Usual level: the team’s earlier games this season plus half of last season, pulled toward the league average. One team’s defense and the other team’s offense are the same snaps, so one game can’t fully say whose day it was; it shows how far this one was from both teams’ norms.
How 4,000 replays ended
California wins 3% of them, Virginia Tech 97%. The line is what actually happened: Virginia Tech by 8.
Show as a table
| Final margin in the replays | Share of replays |
|---|---|
| California by 17+ | 0.1% |
| California by 9–16 | 0.6% |
| California by 1–8 | 2.1% |
| Level after regulation | 0.3% |
| Virginia Tech by 1–8 | 6.8% |
| Virginia Tech by 9–16 | 13.1% |
| Virginia Tech by 17+ | 76.9% |
Where the luck was
What the luck was worth
Every lucky and unlucky play, weighted by the moment it happened: its swing in win probability, added up by kind. A missed kick in a decided game counts for nothing; the same kick at the end of a tie game can be most of a win.
The kicks
How likely each kicker was to make that kick (his own record, the distance), and what happened.
- J. Love, 46 yds made · 66% expected
- C. Meyer, 38 yds made · 76% expected
- C. Meyer, 34 yds made · 82% expected
- J. Love, 52 yds made · 56% expected
- J. Love, 45 yds missed · 69% expected
- C. Meyer, 49 yds missed · 56% expected
Penalties: California 9 for 91 yards, Virginia Tech 9 for 74 yards
Every accepted flag, in order, and what it did to the helped team’s chance of winning at that moment, including any play it wiped out (points on the scoreboard in grey). A flag in a decided game is worth nothing; one at the turn of a close game can be worth most of a win. Judgment calls count toward luck, pre-snap fouls mostly don’t. How calls are valued
| When | Flag | Win probability for |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 11:06 | False Start on Virginia Tech, 5 yards · pre-snap | +1% CAL +0.7 pts |
| Q1 6:48 | Unnecessary Roughness on Virginia Tech, 15 yards | +2% CAL +1.6 pts |
| Q1 4:32 | Holding on California, 10 yards | +1% VT +0.6 pts |
| Q1 3:30 | Ineligible Downfield on California, 5 yards | +2% VT +1.0 pts |
| Q1 2:40 | False Start on California, 5 yards · pre-snap | +1% VT +0.7 pts |
| Q1 1:11 | Unsportsmanlike Conduct on Virginia Tech, 10 yards | +1% CAL +0.6 pts |
| Q2 14:55 | Offside on Virginia Tech, 2 yards · pre-snap | +3% CAL +1.4 pts |
| Q2 11:54 | False Start on California, 5 yards · pre-snap | +2% VT +0.8 pts |
| Q2 5:06 | False Start on Virginia Tech, 5 yards · pre-snap | +1% CAL +0.2 pts |
| Q2 3:03 | False Start on California, 5 yards · pre-snap | +1% VT +0.5 pts |
| Q3 7:33 | Intentional Grounding on California, 11 yards | +2% VT +0.7 pts |
| Q3 6:55 | Illegal Block on Virginia Tech, 14 yards | +3% CAL +0.9 pts |
| Q3 0:03 | Roughing the Passer on California, 15 yards | +4% VT +1.2 pts |
| Q4 14:01 | Holding on California, 25 yards, wiping out the play | +3% CAL +0.6 pts |
| Q4 14:01 | Holding on California, 10 yards | +7% VT +1.8 pts |
| Q4 14:01 | Unnecessary Roughness on Virginia Tech, 15 yards | +8% CAL +1.8 pts |
| Q4 2:48 | Roughing the Passer on Virginia Tech, 3 yards, wiping out the play | +26% CAL +3.8 pts |
| Q4 1:21 | False Start on Virginia Tech, 5 yards · pre-snap | 0% CAL +0.4 pts |
When it happened
Virginia Tech’s chance of winning
As low as 13% and as high as 100%. Numbers mark the biggest luck moments, listed below.
| # | When | What happened | Win probability for | Next drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Q2 1:49 | California converted 4th & 23rd & 4th downs · 53% expected | +7% CAL | CAL: Touchdown |
| 2 | Q3 8:45 | J. Love made a 52-yard field goalKicks · 56% expected for him, 9 of 14 from 45+ before | +7% VT | VT: Touchdown |
| 3 | Q3 3:47 | California converted 3rd & 73rd & 4th downs · 33% expected | +8% CAL | CAL: Punt |
| 4 | Q4 7:31 | Virginia Tech converted 3rd & 23rd & 4th downs · 65% expected | +24% CAL | VT: Touchdown |
| 5 | Q4 6:07 | California converted 3rd & 83rd & 4th downs · 31% expected | +8% CAL | CAL: Touchdown |
| 6 | Q4 2:48 | Roughing the Passer on Virginia Tech, 3 yards, wiping out the playJudgment calls | +26% CAL | CAL: Touchdown |
| 7 | Q4 1:12 | J. Love missed a 45-yard field goalKicks · 69% expected for him, 10 of 15 from 45+ before | +22% CAL | VT: End of game |
| 8 | 2OT | Virginia Tech’s two-point try was good3rd & 4th downs · 46% expected | +15% VT | – |
Adjust the assumptions
Disagree with how much of a fumble bounce or a pass interference call is luck? Change it and the coin-flip replay reruns in your browser.
Only coin-flips re-rolled
California 6% · Virginia Tech 94%
- Final margin
- Virginia Tech by 8
- Luck in points
- 2.7 for California
- Luck-adjusted margin
- Virginia Tech by 10.7
- Replay with same day's form
- California 3% · Virginia Tech 97% unchanged: why
About these numbers
Play-by-play and expected points from CollegeFootballData.com via cfbfastR; win probability from our own model of the score, the possession and the betting line; kicks valued against each kicker’s own record. College play-by-play has no charting of drops or interception-worthy throws and no injury reports, so those kinds of luck aren’t counted here.
Methodology and validation · All Week 9 2025 games · 
California · 
Virginia Tech
More from Week 9 2025
- Virginia at North Carolina UVA 17–16 · replay 15% for the winner
- SMU at Wake Forest WAKE 13–12 · replay 70% for the winner
- NC State at Pittsburgh PITT 53–34 · replay 78% for the winner
- Boston College at Louisville LOU 38–24 · replay 88% for the winner
- Syracuse at Georgia Tech GT 41–16 · replay 97% for the winner
- Stanford at Miami MIA 42–7 · replay 100% for the winner
- BYU at Iowa State BYU 41–27 · replay 26% for the winner
- South Florida at Memphis MEM 34–31 · replay 28% for the winner
- Akron at Buffalo AKR 24–16 · replay 30% for the winner
- Auburn at Arkansas AUB 33–24 · replay 30% for the winner
- Bowling Green at Kent State KENT 24–21 · replay 38% for the winner
- Alabama at South Carolina ALA 29–22 · replay 38% for the winner