Auburn

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1441st
  Defense+0.0682nd
• 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.
  Offense43.0%47th
  Defense41.7%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2130th
  Defense+1.2077th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1560th
  Defense−0.0493rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1223rd
  Defense+0.1960th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%49th
  Defense45.9%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.
  Offense32.3%63rd
  Defense32.9%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1153rd
  Defense2.6492nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%33rd
  Defense23.8%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%82nd
  Defense17.8%71st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2021

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
   AKR
2. W
   ALST
3. L
   PSU
4. W
   GAST
5. W
   LSU
6. L
   UGA
7. W
   ARK
8. W
   MISS
9. L
   TA&M
10. L
    MSST
11. L
    SC
12. L
    ALA
13. L
    HOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2021

1. Bo NixQB313 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 74th of 219 QBs
   1.29WAR0.70 to 1.84
2. Tank BigsbyRB211 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 14th of 387 RBs
   0.87WAR0.69 to 1.05
3. TJ FinleyQB129 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 146th of 219 QBs
   0.40WAR0.16 to 0.67
4. Jarquez HunterRB83 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 168th of 387 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.34
5. Kobe HudsonWR54 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 74th of 474 WRs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
6. Shedrick JacksonWR52 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 151st of 474 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
7. Oscar ChapmanP53 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 32nd of 101 punters
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
8. Demetris RobertsonWR48 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 166th of 474 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84084014th of 130Roster talent: 840, 14th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25425415th of 130Recruiting: 254, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%90th of 128Returning production: 61%, 90th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.0+11.029th of 130SP+ rating: +11.0, 29th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2021

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.17 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 HOUQ4 9:47 4th & 2 at AUB 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at PSUQ4 14:55 4th & 1 at PSU 26, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. at SCQ4 3:30 4th & 8 at AUB 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at SCQ3 1:04 4th & 16 at SC 36, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
5. vs MSSTQ4 8:30 4th & 10 at AUB 45, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
6. at ARKQ1 1:13 4th & 1 at AUB 16, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at SCQ4 8:24 4th & 7 at midfield, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs UGAQ2 12:00 4th & 2 at AUB 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

99th of 130 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

   AKR
2. W

   ALST
3. L

   PSU
4. W

   GAST
5. W

   LSU
6. L

   UGA
7. W

   ARK
8. W

   MISS
9. L

   TA&M
10. L

    MSST
11. L

    SC
12. L

    ALA
13. L

    HOU

What moved it, 2021

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−0.52
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.30

Game by game

• AKRW 60-10 vs AKR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• ALSTW 62-0 vs ALST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• PSUL 20-28 at PSU39% → 10%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position +3
• GASTW 34-24 vs GAST96% → 93%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• LSUW 24-19 at LSU39% → 93%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• UGAL 10-34 vs UGA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• ARKW 38-23 at ARK40% → 99%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• MISSW 31-20 vs MISS56% → 98%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• TA&ML 3-20 at TA&M35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• MSSTL 34-43 vs MSST64% → 4%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• SCL 17-21 at SC70% → 6%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 22-24 vs ALA10% → 71%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +61: Timeouts −20, Scoreboard +18
• HOUL 13-17 vs HOU49% → 5%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3

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.