Auburn

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1043rd
  Defense+0.0952nd
• 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.
  Offense41.3%41st
  Defense40.2%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2331st
  Defense+1.2648th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1778th
  Defense+0.0851st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0917th
  Defense+0.1766th
• 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%63rd
  Defense45.1%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.
  Offense24.9%13th
  Defense31.1%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0136th
  Defense2.9767th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%30th
  Defense18.3%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%32nd
  Defense18.1%78th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   MASS
2. W
   CAL
3. W
   SAM
4. L
   TA&M
5. L
   UGA
6. L
   LSU
7. L
   MISS
8. W
   MSST
9. W
   VAN
10. W
    ARK
11. L
    NMSU
12. L
    ALA
13. L
    MD

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2023

1. Payton ThorneQB291 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 60th of 250 QBs
   1.37WAR0.79 to 1.90
2. Jarquez HunterRB154 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 65th of 383 RBs
   0.32WAR0.16 to 0.47
3. Robby AshfordQB49 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 187th of 250 QBs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.32
4. Oscar ChapmanP53 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 7th of 103 punters
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
5. Rivaldo FairweatherTE29 plays · +0.345 pts/play · 16th of 212 TEs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
6. Ja'Varrius JohnsonWR16 plays · +0.345 pts/play · 180th of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Brian BattieRB35 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 256th of 383 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Alex McPhersonPK10 plays · +0.371 pts/play · 76th of 113 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77177118th of 130Roster talent: 771, 18th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23823817th of 130Recruiting: 238, 17th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%15th of 128Returning production: 79%, 15th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.6+7.636th of 130SP+ rating: +7.6, 36th 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, 2023

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 0.05 of the 0.12 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 MISSQ3 7:22 4th & 1 at AUB 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs ALAQ4 10:15 4th & 4 at ALA 4, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at ARKQ2 9:08 4th & 3 at ARK 47, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs MSSTQ4 9:35 4th & 1 at AUB 41, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs MSSTQ4 13:01 4th & 1 at AUB 23, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs MSSTQ2 12:04 4th & 3 at MSST 45, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs UGAQ2 9:52 4th & 1 at AUB 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at MDQ1 2:19 4th & 5 at AUB 15, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

105th of 133 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

   MASS
2. W

   CAL
3. W

   SAM
4. L

   TA&M
5. L

   UGA
6. L

   LSU
7. L

   MISS
8. W

   MSST
9. W

   VAN
10. W

    ARK
11. L

    NMSU
12. L

    ALA
13. L

    MD

What moved it, 2023

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−0.96
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• MASSW 59-14 vs MASS99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CALW 14-10 at CAL67% → 94%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• SAMW 45-13 vs SAM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• TA&ML 10-27 at TA&M27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30
• UGAL 20-27 vs UGA17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• LSUL 18-48 at LSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• MISSL 21-28 vs MISS34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• MSSTW 27-13 vs MSST69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• VANW 31-15 at VAN83% → 98%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• ARKW 48-10 at ARK44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts +2
• NMSUL 10-31 vs NMSU94% → 1%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −94: Scoreboard −63, Clock −4
• ALAL 24-27 vs ALA17% → 12%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position −2
• MDL 13-31 at MD59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −1

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.