Auburn

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1147th
  Defense+0.1240th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%23rd
  Defense42.3%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3687th
  Defense+1.2068th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1778th
  Defense+0.1615th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1014th
  Defense+0.1083rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%36th
  Defense47.8%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.8%16th
  Defense31.6%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0138th
  Defense3.1538th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%7th
  Defense16.8%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%20th
  Defense15.0%33rd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   MER
2. W
   SJSU
3. L
   PSU
4. W
   MIZ
5. L
   LSU
6. L
   UGA
7. L
   MISS
8. L
   ARK
9. L
   MSST
10. W
    TA&M
11. W
    WKU
12. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2022

1. Robby AshfordQB292 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 85th of 234 QBs
   0.92WAR0.29 to 1.58
2. Tank BigsbyRB174 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 45th of 384 RBs
   0.43WAR0.28 to 0.58
3. Jarquez HunterRB89 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 126th of 384 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.31
4. Oscar ChapmanP48 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 15th of 102 punters
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. John Samuel ShenkerTE18 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 63rd of 214 TEs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
6. TJ FinleyQB53 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 209th of 234 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.07 to 0.20
7. Ja'Varrius JohnsonWR20 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 307th of 455 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. Anders CarlsonPK15 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 90th of 110 kickers
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.08

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  78478417th of 129Roster talent: 784, 17th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24524515th of 129Recruiting: 245, 15th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%88th of 128Returning production: 45%, 88th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.1+5.154th of 129SP+ rating: +5.1, 54th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.07 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. vs TA&MQ3 0:39 4th & 1 at TA&M 18, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs TA&MQ2 0:00 4th & 19 at TA&M 39, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
3. vs WKUQ3 13:08 4th & 2 at AUB 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs ARKQ2 1:14 4th & 1 at AUB 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs TA&MQ4 6:36 4th & 5 at TA&M 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs TA&MQ2 10:23 4th & 4 at TA&M 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs SJSUQ3 4:48 4th & 3 at SJSU 28, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs LSUQ3 12:27 4th & 3 at AUB 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

73rd of 131 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

   MER
2. W

   SJSU
3. L

   PSU
4. W

   MIZ
5. L

   LSU
6. L

   UGA
7. L

   MISS
8. L

   ARK
9. L

   MSST
10. W

    TA&M
11. W

    WKU
12. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2022

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−0.92
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• MERW 42-16 vs MER96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• SJSUW 24-16 vs SJSU94% → 98%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• PSUL 12-41 vs PSU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• MIZW 17-14 vs MIZ71% → 71%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +1: Timeouts −21, Clock +17
• LSUL 17-21 vs LSU29% → 5%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• UGAL 10-42 at UGA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• MISSL 34-48 at MISS18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• ARKL 27-41 vs ARK38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• MSSTL 33-39 at MSST21% → 14%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +17
• TA&MW 13-10 vs TA&M49% → 95%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3
• WKUW 41-17 vs WKU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 27-49 at ALA7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10

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.