Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1668th
  Defense−0.0395th
• 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.
  Offense45.2%74th
  Defense37.2%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3066th
  Defense+1.2168th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1674th
  Defense−0.0694th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1855th
  Defense+0.0187th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.9%80th
  Defense41.8%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.9%44th
  Defense28.6%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7516th
  Defense2.8171st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%10th
  Defense18.2%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%57th
  Defense17.9%70th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   WKU
2. W
   USF
3. W
   WIS
4. W
   UGA
5. L
   VAN
6. W
   SC
7. L
   TENN
8. W
   MIZ
9. W
   LSU
10. W
    MER
11. L
    OU
12. W
    AUB
13. L
    MICH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2024

1. Jalen MilroeQB387 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 31st of 232 QBs
   2.00WAR1.24 to 2.65
2. Jam MillerRB128 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 80th of 373 RBs
   0.31WAR0.24 to 0.38
3. James BurnipP38 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 6th of 106 punters
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.26
4. Justice HaynesRB77 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 187th of 373 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Graham NicholsonPK9 plays · +0.382 pts/play · 79th of 114 kickers
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.09
6. CJ DippreTE23 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 52nd of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.10
7. Kobe PrenticeWR8 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 303rd of 452 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Josh CuevasTE10 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 112th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  101810181st of 131Roster talent: 1018, 1st of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3223221st of 131Recruiting: 322, 1st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%38th of 130Returning production: 60%, 38th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +25.0+25.04th of 131SP+ rating: +25.0, 4th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.10 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 3:23 4th & 1 at ALA 26, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at TENNQ3 8:26 4th & 1 at ALA 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at VANQ4 2:46 4th & 1 at VAN 2, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at TENNQ4 1:48 4th & 22 at ALA 18, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at TENNQ2 5:52 4th & 2 at ALA 20, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs UGAQ4 12:30 4th & 5 at UGA 42, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at OUQ4 6:53 4th & 10 at OU 35, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at OUQ1 3:23 4th & 3 at OU 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

118th of 134 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

   WKU
2. W

   USF
3. W

   WIS
4. W

   UGA
5. L

   VAN
6. W

   SC
7. L

   TENN
8. W

   MIZ
9. W

   LSU
10. W

    MER
11. L

    OU
12. W

    AUB
13. L

    MICH

What moved it, 2024

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−0.18
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.69

Game by game

• WKUW 63-0 vs WKU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• USFW 42-16 vs USF97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• WISW 42-10 at WIS86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19
• UGAW 41-34 vs UGA53% → 96%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• VANL 35-40 at VAN95% → 4%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −90: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• SCW 27-25 vs SC93% → 82%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −11: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• TENNL 17-24 at TENN62% → 3%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• MIZW 34-0 vs MIZ85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• LSUW 42-13 at LSU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• MERW 52-7 vs MER99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• OUL 3-24 at OU84% → 0%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −64, Clock +3
• AUBW 28-14 vs AUB75% → 98%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position −1
• MICHL 13-19 at MICH88% → 4%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −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.