Auburn

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0726th
  Defense+0.0271st
• 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.
  Offense41.6%34th
  Defense38.8%66th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2758th
  Defense+1.1961st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1768th
  Defense+0.0550th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0313th
  Defense+0.0964th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.2%20th
  Defense43.9%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%65th
  Defense26.2%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2875th
  Defense2.7566th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.5%71st
  Defense17.6%37th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%26th
  Defense16.6%59th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Auburn 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
   BAY
2. W
   USM
3. L
   FLA
4. W
   VAN
5. L
   TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2026

1. Byrum BrownQB189 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 9th of 192 QBs
   0.58WAR0.28 to 0.87
2. Keshaun SingletonWR35 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 15th of 364 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.19
3. Chas NimrodWR28 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 78th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
4. Jeremiah CobbRB36 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 142nd of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
5. Jeremiah KogerWR12 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
6. Hudson KaakP18 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 12th of 84 punters
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
7. Alex McPhersonPK4 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 58th of 82 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Jake JohnsonTE9 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 78th of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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 Auburn'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  82882818th of 138Roster talent: 828, 18th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25825815th of 138Recruiting: 258, 15th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%110th of 136Returning production: 14%, 110th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.0+11.031st of 138SP+ rating so far: +11.0, 31st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Auburn's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.03 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 FLAQ4 11:07 4th & 10 at AUB 42, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
2. vs VANQ2 0:01 4th & 5 at VAN 43, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs VANQ1 3:49 4th & 2 at AUB 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs FLAQ4 0:24 4th & 13 at FLA 35, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs VANQ4 9:39 4th & 3 at AUB 42, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at TENNQ2 5:06 4th & 9 at TENN 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs BAYQ1 8:13 4th & 4 at BAY 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at TENNQ1 10:36 4th & 3 at AUB 16, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

70th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   BAY
2. W

   USM
3. L

   FLA
4. W

   VAN
5. L

   TENN

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Auburn'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−0.34
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04

Game by game

• BAYW 17-16 vs BAY65% → 70%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +5: Timeouts +5, Scoreboard +4
• USMW 43-8 vs USM97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• FLAL 39-44 vs FLA37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• VANW 21-15 vs VAN73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• TENNL 14-24 at TENN28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Auburn's side.

Closest call

TA&M 24-28 AUB (2018) - Auburn dropped to a 12.7% win probability before pulling it out.