Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0375th
• 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.
  Offense42.7%55th
  Defense37.9%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2765th
  Defense+1.2356th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0121st
  Defense+0.0555th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3074th
  Defense+0.0680th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.6%39th
  Defense43.2%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%78th
  Defense28.0%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7320th
  Defense2.8161st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%20th
  Defense19.1%52nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.5%71st
  Defense17.7%81st

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. L
   FSU
2. W
   ULM
3. W
   WIS
4. W
   UGA
5. W
   VAN
6. W
   MIZ
7. W
   TENN
8. W
   SC
9. W
   LSU
10. L
    OU
11. W
    EIU
12. W
    AUB
13. L
    UGA
14. W
    OU
15. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2025

1. Ty SimpsonQB478 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 13th of 231 QBs
   2.00WAR1.20 to 2.79
2. Jam MillerRB138 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 68th of 365 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.34
3. Daniel HillRB93 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 128th of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.25
4. Germie BernardWR105 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 88th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR−0.03 to 0.36
5. Isaiah HortonWR46 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 130th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.24
6. Josh CuevasTE45 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 13th of 213 TEs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.21
7. Lotzeir BrooksWR40 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 161st of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
8. Conor TaltyPK18 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 66th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.11

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9949942nd of 134Roster talent: 994, 2nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3153151st of 134Recruiting: 315, 1st of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%50th of 132Returning production: 43%, 50th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.8+14.820th of 134SP+ rating: +14.8, 20th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.06 of the 0.14 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 UGAQ4 8:10 4th & 7 at UGA 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at MIZQ3 0:09 4th & 4 at MIZ 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs OUQ2 0:06 4th & 10 at OU 39, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at MIZQ4 1:17 4th & 10 at MIZ 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at MIZQ3 10:27 4th & 3 at ALA 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at AUBQ3 5:31 4th & 2 at ALA 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs LSUQ4 4:25 4th & 2 at LSU 26, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs OUQ3 3:49 4th & 3 at ALA 27, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

61st of 136 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. L

   FSU
2. W

   ULM
3. W

   WIS
4. W

   UGA
5. W

   VAN
6. W

   MIZ
7. W

   TENN
8. W

   SC
9. W

   LSU
10. L

    OU
11. W

    EIU
12. W

    AUB
13. L

    UGA
14. W

    OU
15. L

    IU

What moved it, 2025

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+1.14
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.13

Game by game

• FSUL 17-31 at FSU84% → 1%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −2
• ULMW 73-0 vs ULM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• WISW 38-14 vs WIS90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• UGAW 24-21 at UGA45% → 94%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• VANW 30-14 vs VAN82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• MIZW 27-24 at MIZ64% → 94%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• TENNW 37-20 vs TENN76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position −2
• SCW 29-22 at SC80% → 92%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +2
• LSUW 20-9 vs LSU75% → 97%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• OUL 21-23 vs OU68% → 5%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• EIUW 56-0 vs EIU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• AUBW 27-20 at AUB72% → 94%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• UGAL 7-28 vs UGA47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• OUW 34-24 at OU46% → 98%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• IUL 3-38 at IU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −39, 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.