Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.122nd
  Defense+0.1144th
• 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.
  Offense36.7%9th
  Defense39.9%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.043rd
  Defense+1.2916th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.078th
  Defense−0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.163rd
  Defense+0.2327th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.5%16th
  Defense43.5%76th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.8%1st
  Defense32.7%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5813th
  Defense2.6177th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%36th
  Defense24.2%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.7%16th
  Defense2.1%61st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Charlotte 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
   GAST
2. W
   PRES
3. L
   MTSU
4. L
   FAU
5. L
   TEM
6. L
   ODU
7. L
   USM
8. L
   MRSH
9. L
   FIU
10. L
    UTSA
11. L
    UK
12. L
    RICE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2015

1. Kalif PhillipsRB143 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 40th of 333 RBs
   0.40WAR0.28 to 0.50
2. Lee McNeillQB164 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 153rd of 205 QBs
   0.33WAR0.06 to 0.58
3. Brooks BardenQB65 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 179th of 205 QBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.25
4. Andrew BuieRB108 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 162nd of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.23
5. Matt JohnsonRB65 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 163rd of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
6. Blake BrewerPK21 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 83rd of 115 kickers
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Trent BostickWR45 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 262nd of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
8. Arthur HartP51 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 54th of 92 punters
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.16

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 Charlotte'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  304304122nd of 128Roster talent: 304, 122nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8888125th of 128Recruiting: 88, 125th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.7−21.7126th of 128SP+ rating: −21.7, 126th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Charlotte'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 0.13 of the 0.19 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 ODUQ4 5:11 4th & 3 at ODU 3, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
2. at ODUQ4 0:21 4th & 13 at ODU 44, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.7 pts
3. at GASTQ3 3:01 4th & 1 at CLT 38, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at ODUQ2 2:12 4th & 7 at ODU 39, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at GASTQ3 7:32 4th & 4 at GAST 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs UTSAQ3 10:11 4th & 2 at CLT 25, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at UKQ3 14:54 4th & 9 at CLT 32, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UTSAQ2 0:43 4th & 4 at UTSA 18, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

89th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Charlotte's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   GAST
2. W

   PRES
3. L

   MTSU
4. L

   FAU
5. L

   TEM
6. L

   ODU
7. L

   USM
8. L

   MRSH
9. L

   FIU
10. L

    UTSA
11. L

    UK
12. L

    RICE

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Charlotte'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−1.25
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.78

Game by game

• GASTW 23-20 at GAST39% → 95%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• PRESW 34-10 vs PRES73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• MTSUL 14-73 at MTSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• FAUL 7-17 vs FAU24% → 3%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• TEML 3-37 vs TEM7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• ODUL 34-37 at ODU26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• USML 10-44 vs USM13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18
• MRSHL 10-34 vs MRSH9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• FIUL 31-48 at FIU10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• UTSAL 27-30 vs UTSA31% → 28%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −34, Clock +20
• UKL 10-58 at UK5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• RICEL 7-27 at RICE25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28

Points of win probability, from Charlotte's side.

Closest call

CLT 42-41 GAST (2022) - Charlotte dropped to a 3.9% win probability before pulling it out.