Auburn

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1460th
  Defense+0.1537th
• 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.
  Offense43.5%59th
  Defense45.8%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2027th
  Defense+1.2070th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1676th
  Defense+0.1139th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1244th
  Defense+0.2044th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.0%65th
  Defense50.0%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%52nd
  Defense35.2%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2383rd
  Defense3.1428th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%85th
  Defense13.9%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%90th
  Defense14.4%26th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   UK
2. L
   UGA
3. W
   ARK
4. L
   SC
5. W
   MISS
6. W
   LSU
7. W
   TENN
8. L
   ALA
9. L
   TA&M
10. W
    MSST
11. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2020

1. Bo NixQB388 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 32nd of 212 QBs
   0.84WAR0.25 to 1.48
2. Tank BigsbyRB135 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 17th of 338 RBs
   0.55WAR0.46 to 0.66
3. Shaun ShiversRB69 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 171st of 338 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.24
4. Seth WilliamsWR79 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 67th of 409 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
5. DJ WilliamsRB41 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 222nd of 338 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.16
6. Anthony SchwartzWR74 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 71st of 409 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.22
7. Anders CarlsonPK19 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 3rd of 97 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Eli StoveWR55 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 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 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84584512th of 127Roster talent: 845, 12th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2662669th of 127Recruiting: 266, 9th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%47th of 127Returning production: 73%, 47th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.6+12.621st of 127SP+ rating: +12.6, 21st of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.25 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 SCQ4 0:09 4th & 5 at SC 12, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−12.7 pts
2. at MISSQ3 9:49 4th & 1 at AUB 33, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at SCQ4 6:39 4th & 5 at SC 5, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs TENNQ2 1:18 4th & 1 at AUB 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at UGAQ2 1:38 4th & 3 at UGA 3, down 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at SCQ3 10:22 4th & 4 at SC 21, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs TENNQ2 5:36 4th & 4 at TENN 8, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at NUQ3 3:44 4th & 3 at AUB 43, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

51st of 127 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

   UK
2. L

   UGA
3. W

   ARK
4. L

   SC
5. W

   MISS
6. W

   LSU
7. W

   TENN
8. L

   ALA
9. L

   TA&M
10. W

    MSST
11. L

    NU

What moved it, 2020

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+0.45
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.47

Game by game

• UKW 29-13 vs UK70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• UGAL 6-27 at UGA32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33
• ARKW 30-28 vs ARK83% → 93%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −1
• SCL 22-30 at SC60% → 7%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• MISSW 35-28 at MISS60% → 82%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +40, Possession & field position −2
• LSUW 48-11 vs LSU58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +1
• TENNW 30-17 vs TENN77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 13-42 at ALA6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• TA&ML 20-31 vs TA&M33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• MSSTW 24-10 at MSST68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• NUL 19-35 at NU40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −36, 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.