Try the model

Alabama A&M

Bulldogs · SWAC · FCS
0-32017 · vs FBS opponents

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2017
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense−2.31
Defense+0.80allowed
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense−1.98
Defense+1.06allowed
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense−4.150.0 pts/trip
Defense+0.514.5 pts/trip allowed
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense0.73
Defense1.50opponents

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 A&M 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.

Game by game
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama A&M.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2017
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

26 of 3379%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

0.3 ptsper game
0.01 expected wins over 3 games
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

-

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 A&M's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and every call that differed was a close one. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right.

Costliest calls against the numbers
  1. at UABQ2 5:39 4th & 2 at UAB 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
  2. at USAQ1 3:21 4th & 3 at USA 37, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.1 pts
  3. at UABQ2 12:01 4th & 3 at AAMU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.1 pts
  4. at UABQ1 7:14 4th & 13 at UAB 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.1 pts
  5. at USAQ1 6:10 4th & 3 at USA 5, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.1 pts
  6. at USAQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at USA 45, down 31Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
  7. at USAQ4 5:24 4th & 3 at AAMU 19, down 45Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
Every call this season (33)
Wk 1 · at UAB · L 7-3810 of 13 agreed
  1. Q1 9:084th & 13 at AAMU 22, down 7, Punted
    Agreed
  2. Q1 7:144th & 13 at UAB 33, down 7, Punted
    Close call
  3. Q2 15:004th & 1 at UAB 30, down 7, Went for it
    Agreed
  4. Q2 12:014th & 3 at AAMU 42, down 7, Punted
    Close call
  5. Q2 5:394th & 2 at UAB 42, down 7, Punted
    Close call
  6. Q2 0:314th & 7 at AAMU 28, down 3, Punted
    Agreed
  7. Q3 14:554th & 9 at AAMU 20, down 3, Punted
    Agreed
  8. Q3 10:104th & 17 at AAMU 3, down 3, Punted
    Agreed
  9. Q3 5:534th & 7 at AAMU 46, down 17, Punted
    Agreed
  10. Q3 1:444th & 7 at UAB 47, down 17, Punted
    Agreed
  11. Q4 13:234th & 3 at AAMU 32, down 24, Punted
    Agreed
  12. Q4 7:544th & 7 at AAMU 12, down 24, Punted
    Agreed
  13. Q4 2:234th & 9 at AAMU 15, down 31, Punted
    Agreed
Wk 2 · at VAN · L 0-4210 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 8:384th & 17 at AAMU 37, down 7, Punted
    Agreed
  2. Q1 2:394th & 6 at AAMU 15, down 14, Punted
    Agreed
  3. Q2 14:074th & 9 at AAMU 35, down 14, Punted
    Agreed
  4. Q2 6:034th & 10 at AAMU 47, down 21, Punted
    Agreed
  5. Q2 4:174th & 16 at AAMU 19, down 28, Punted
    Agreed
  6. Q3 15:004th & 5 at AAMU 30, down 35, Punted
    Agreed
  7. Q3 3:284th & 8 at AAMU 40, down 42, Punted
    Agreed
  8. Q4 14:034th & 10 at AAMU 24, down 42, Punted
    Agreed
  9. Q4 10:014th & 15 at AAMU 2, down 42, Punted
    Agreed
  10. Q4 7:174th & 12 at AAMU 42, down 42, Punted
    Agreed
Wk 3 · at USA · L 0-456 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 11:084th & 4 at USA 37, down 3, Went for it
    Agreed
  2. Q1 6:104th & 3 at USA 5, down 3, Kicked a field goal
    Close call
  3. Q1 6:104th & 6 at AAMU 12, down 10, Punted
    Agreed
  4. Q1 3:214th & 3 at USA 37, down 24, Punted
    Close call
  5. Q2 12:204th & 7 at AAMU 47, down 24, Punted
    Agreed
  6. Q2 5:354th & 9 at AAMU 38, down 24, Punted
    Agreed
  7. Q2 0:194th & 11 at USA 47, down 31, Punted
    Agreed
  8. Q3 15:004th & 4 at USA 45, down 31, Punted
    Close call
  9. Q4 15:004th & 17 at AAMU 46, down 45, Punted
    Agreed
  10. Q4 5:244th & 3 at AAMU 19, down 45, Punted
    Close call
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

1 of 1100%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0 ptsthis season
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Never went for two

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2017
0-3vs. 0.1 expected−0.1 wins

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

  1. L
    UAB
  2. L
    VAN
  3. L
    USA
What moved it, 2017
−1.4 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
−0.1 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

Every game starts at Alabama A&M'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−0.09
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04
Game by game

Points of win probability, from Alabama A&M's side.

Season arc, 2017

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Alabama A&M's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2017

The largest single-play change in Alabama A&M's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

Alabama A&M's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

No games rated yet.
Let it slip

Alabama A&M's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

Alabama A&M's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›

Not enough game history yet to compute a stock price.

Series & rivalries

Alabama A&M's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com