Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.3595th
  Defense−0.0280th
• 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.
  Offense50.0%90th
  Defense36.4%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3686th
  Defense+1.435th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3197th
  Defense−0.1188th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4282nd
  Defense+0.1261st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.1%89th
  Defense41.4%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.6%73rd
  Defense27.3%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3377th
  Defense2.1796th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.8%67th
  Defense25.8%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%31st
  Defense19.6%85th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Alabama 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
   ECU
2. W
   UK
3. W
   FSU
4. W
   SC
5. W
   MSST
6. L
   UGA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2026

1. Keelon RussellQB142 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 44th of 192 QBs
   0.37WAR0.14 to 0.58
2. Lotzeir BrooksWR27 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 46th of 364 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
3. Daniel HillRB43 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 115th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
4. Ryan Coleman-WilliamsWR24 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 78th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
5. Trae'shawn BrownRB36 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 131st of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.06 to 0.10
6. Rico ScottWR19 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05
7. Conor TaltyPK6 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 48th of 82 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Kaleb EdwardsTE6 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 89th of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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 Alabama'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9749744th of 138Roster talent: 974, 4th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3103101st of 138Recruiting: 310, 1st of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%91st of 136Returning production: 26%, 91st of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.0+23.08th of 138SP+ rating so far: +23.0, 8th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Alabama's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 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 UGAQ4 3:10 4th & 19 at UGA 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.0 pts
2. vs UGAQ3 5:07 4th & 2 at UGA 21, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs FSUQ4 9:53 4th & 2 at FSU 27, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at MSSTQ2 11:38 4th & 3 at ALA 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at UKQ2 2:09 4th & 3 at UK 23, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs SCQ2 0:01 4th & 2 at ALA 44, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at MSSTQ2 6:40 4th & 5 at MSST 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at UKQ3 7:10 4th & 4 at UK 16, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

51st of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Alabama's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   ECU
2. W

   UK
3. W

   FSU
4. W

   SC
5. W

   MSST
6. L

   UGA

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Alabama'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+0.59
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• ECUW 48-10 vs ECU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UKW 45-17 at UK78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• FSUW 50-36 vs FSU89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• SCW 49-18 vs SC79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• MSSTW 56-23 at MSST66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• UGAL 17-20 vs UGA52% → 5%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −52, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Alabama's side.

Closest call

ALA 24-22 AUB (2021) - Alabama dropped to a 4.4% win probability before pulling it out.