Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2893rd
  Defense−0.0192nd
• 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.
  Offense47.1%82nd
  Defense39.1%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3892nd
  Defense+1.1288th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1675th
  Defense+0.0173rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3788th
  Defense−0.0298th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%70th
  Defense45.6%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.3%98th
  Defense25.9%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9732nd
  Defense2.8481st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%22nd
  Defense22.3%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%73rd
  Defense17.9%75th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   USU
2. W
   TEX
3. W
   ULM
4. W
   VAN
5. W
   ARK
6. W
   TA&M
7. L
   TENN
8. W
   MSST
9. L
   LSU
10. W
    MISS
11. W
    APSU
12. W
    AUB
13. W
    KSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2022

1. Bryce YoungQB259 plays · +0.363 pts/play · 34th of 234 QBs
   1.76WAR1.22 to 2.26
2. Jahmyr GibbsRB144 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 48th of 384 RBs
   0.42WAR0.28 to 0.56
3. Jase McClellanRB66 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 184th of 384 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Jalen MilroeQB48 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 185th of 234 QBs
   0.16WAR0.02 to 0.33
5. Ja'Corey BrooksWR46 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 149th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
6. Cameron LatuTE31 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 20th of 214 TEs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Jermaine BurtonWR32 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 168th of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
8. Will ReichardPK16 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 43rd of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  101710171st of 129Roster talent: 1017, 1st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3203201st of 129Recruiting: 320, 1st of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%72nd of 128Returning production: 55%, 72nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +30.3+30.34th of 129SP+ rating: +30.3, 4th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.09 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 TENNQ2 14:07 4th & 2 at TENN 2, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at ARKQ3 0:25 4th & 8 at ALA 27, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
3. vs TA&MQ4 1:50 4th & 2 at ALA 33, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at LSUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at LSU 18, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at ARKQ3 10:36 4th & 1 at ALA 29, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at TEXQ2 4:35 4th & 3 at TEX 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at KSUQ3 8:50 4th & 1 at ALA 27, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at LSUQ1 2:57 4th & 1 at ALA 19, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

93rd of 131 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

   USU
2. W

   TEX
3. W

   ULM
4. W

   VAN
5. W

   ARK
6. W

   TA&M
7. L

   TENN
8. W

   MSST
9. L

   LSU
10. W

    MISS
11. W

    APSU
12. W

    AUB
13. W

    KSU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.57
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.73

Game by game

• USUW 55-0 vs USU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TEXW 20-19 at TEX92% → 78%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −14: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position +1
• ULMW 63-7 vs ULM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• VANW 55-3 vs VAN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ARKW 49-26 at ARK88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• TA&MW 24-20 vs TA&M94% → 81%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −13: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position −2
• TENNL 49-52 at TENN75% → 4%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position −1
• MSSTW 30-6 vs MSST93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position −1
• LSUL 31-32 at LSU84% → 11%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts +21
• MISSW 30-24 at MISS84% → 94%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• APSUW 34-0 vs APSU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• AUBW 49-27 vs AUB93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• KSUW 45-20 at KSU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1

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.