Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1982nd
  Defense−0.1899th
• 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.
  Offense47.2%83rd
  Defense32.0%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1948th
  Defense+1.1759th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2392nd
  Defense−0.2699th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1749th
  Defense−0.1298th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.9%90th
  Defense35.7%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%56th
  Defense26.2%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1676th
  Defense1.6699th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%38th
  Defense24.9%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%41st
  Defense21.6%96th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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
   USC
2. W
   WKU
3. W
   MISS
4. W
   KENT
5. W
   UK
6. W
   ARK
7. W
   TENN
8. W
   TA&M
9. W
   LSU
10. W
    MSST
11. W
    UTC
12. W
    AUB
13. W
    FLA
14. W
    WASH
15. L
    CLEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2016

1. Jalen HurtsQB377 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 61st of 218 QBs
   1.23WAR0.61 to 1.96
2. Damien HarrisRB125 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 56th of 347 RBs
   0.49WAR0.39 to 0.61
3. Bo ScarbroughRB74 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 140th of 347 RBs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.35
4. JK ScottP47 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 26th of 82 punters
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.25
5. ArDarius StewartWR60 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 141st of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
6. Calvin RidleyWR75 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 152nd of 417 WRs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.24
7. Adam GriffithPK20 plays · +0.349 pts/play · 36th of 116 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
8. O.J. HowardTE40 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 5th of 195 TEs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.16

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9839831st of 128Roster talent: 983, 1st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3113111st of 128Recruiting: 311, 1st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%114th of 128Returning production: 34%, 114th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +31.7+31.71st of 128SP+ rating: +31.7, 1st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 0.03 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. at MISSQ3 6:03 4th & 2 at MISS 12, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at MISSQ3 12:24 4th & 2 at ALA 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs CLEMQ4 9:00 4th & 4 at ALA 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at MISSQ2 5:32 4th & 5 at MISS 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs CLEMQ3 12:25 4th & 3 at CLEM 9, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at MISSQ4 10:59 4th & 9 at MISS 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs CLEMQ4 12:14 4th & 5 at ALA 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs WASHQ3 12:10 4th & 8 at WASH 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

22nd of 128 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

   USC
2. W

   WKU
3. W

   MISS
4. W

   KENT
5. W

   UK
6. W

   ARK
7. W

   TENN
8. W

   TA&M
9. W

   LSU
10. W

    MSST
11. W

    UTC
12. W

    AUB
13. W

    FLA
14. W

    WASH
15. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2016

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+2.12
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.72

Game by game

• USCW 52-6 vs USC72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30
• WKUW 38-10 vs WKU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• MISSW 48-43 at MISS71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• KENTW 48-0 vs KENT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UKW 34-6 vs UK97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ARKW 49-30 at ARK83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• TENNW 49-10 at TENN68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +37
• TA&MW 33-14 vs TA&M87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• LSUW 10-0 at LSU61% → 97%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• MSSTW 51-3 vs MSST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• UTCW 31-3 vs UTC100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• AUBW 30-12 vs AUB89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• FLAW 54-16 at FLA92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• WASHW 24-7 vs WASH81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• CLEML 31-35 vs CLEM60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3

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.