Auburn

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1455th
  Defense+0.0573rd
• 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.
  Offense44.9%72nd
  Defense37.8%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2646th
  Defense+1.2751st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1056th
  Defense−0.0489th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1750th
  Defense+0.1647th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%77th
  Defense43.2%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%50th
  Defense28.1%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3285th
  Defense2.4995th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%56th
  Defense21.3%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%32nd
  Defense15.2%39th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   AAMU
2. L
   CAL
3. W
   UNM
4. L
   ARK
5. L
   OU
6. L
   UGA
7. L
   MIZ
8. W
   UK
9. L
   VAN
10. W
    ULM
11. W
    TA&M
12. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2024

1. Payton ThorneQB327 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 81st of 232 QBs
   1.21WAR0.67 to 1.73
2. Jarquez HunterRB172 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 39th of 373 RBs
   0.44WAR0.30 to 0.57
3. KeAndre Lambert-SmithWR39 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 57th of 452 WRs
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.28
4. Cam ColemanWR31 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 115th of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
5. Damari AlstonRB44 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 251st of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
6. Rivaldo FairweatherTE27 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 31st of 221 TEs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Oscar ChapmanP37 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 43rd of 106 punters
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Robert LewisWR13 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 230th of 452 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83483418th of 131Roster talent: 834, 18th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23823819th of 131Recruiting: 238, 19th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%21st of 130Returning production: 71%, 21st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.5+9.533rd of 131SP+ rating: +9.5, 33rd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.11 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 MIZQ4 6:54 4th & 4 at AUB 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs TA&MQ3 8:07 4th & 1 at AUB 25, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs ARKQ3 12:20 4th & 9 at AUB 37, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
4. vs ARKQ4 2:20 4th & 20 at AUB 23, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
5. vs ULMQ2 1:58 4th & 1 at AUB 15, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs VANQ3 9:03 4th & 4 at VAN 26, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs VANQ2 3:18 4th & 2 at AUB 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs VANQ4 2:20 4th & 4 at VAN 34, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

131st of 134 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

   AAMU
2. L

   CAL
3. W

   UNM
4. L

   ARK
5. L

   OU
6. L

   UGA
7. L

   MIZ
8. W

   UK
9. L

   VAN
10. W

    ULM
11. W

    TA&M
12. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2024

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−2.00
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.29

Game by game

• AAMUW 73-3 vs AAMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• CALL 14-21 vs CAL85% → 12%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• UNMW 45-19 vs UNM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• ARKL 14-24 vs ARK64% → 6%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• OUL 21-27 vs OU61% → 10%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −46, Clock −4
• UGAL 13-31 at UGA9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• MIZL 17-21 at MIZ41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• UKW 24-10 at UK54% → 98%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• VANL 7-17 vs VAN79% → 3%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• ULMW 48-14 vs ULM96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• TA&MW 43-41 vs TA&M48% → 77%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +29: Timeouts −23, Scoreboard +22
• ALAL 14-28 at ALA25% → 2%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position +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.