Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.102nd
  Defense+0.1918th
• 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.
  Offense34.8%1st
  Defense49.9%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2264th
  Defense+0.9998th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0754th
  Defense+0.0843rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.291st
  Defense+0.369th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.0%1st
  Defense54.4%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.8%7th
  Defense36.7%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8647th
  Defense3.1916th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.5%18th
  Defense14.1%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.2%6th
  Defense10.9%1st

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, 2017

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. L
   EMU
2. L
   KSU
3. L
   NCAT
4. L
   GAST
5. L
   FIU
6. L
   MRSH
7. L
   WKU
8. W
   UAB
9. L
   ODU
10. L
    MTSU
11. L
    USM
12. L
    FAU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2017

1. Hasaan KlughQB269 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 87th of 226 QBs
   0.89WAR0.44 to 1.35
2. Benny LeMayRB102 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 115th of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.33
3. Aaron McAllisterRB64 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 189th of 352 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Trent BostickWR43 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 260th of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
5. Workpeh KofaWR30 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 286th of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
6. Robert WashingtonRB16 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 268th of 352 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06
7. T.L. Ford IIWR14 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 395th of 426 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Chris MontgomeryWR7 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 416th of 426 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  283283121st of 130Roster talent: 283, 121st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9999123rd of 130Recruiting: 99, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%51st of 128Returning production: 67%, 51st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −26.1−26.1127th of 128SP+ rating: −26.1, 127th of 128 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, 2017

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.20 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 ODUQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at ODU 31, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at ODUQ3 4:59 4th & 2 at ODU 45, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at FIUQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at FIU 42, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs UABQ4 8:11 4th & 4 at UAB 25, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. at EMUQ4 14:49 4th & 1 at CLT 26, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs GASTQ2 6:49 4th & 2 at CLT 20, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs GASTQ2 12:29 4th & 2 at CLT 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs MTSUQ3 3:20 4th & 11 at MTSU 23, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

122nd of 130 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. L

   EMU
2. L

   KSU
3. L

   NCAT
4. L

   GAST
5. L

   FIU
6. L

   MRSH
7. L

   WKU
8. W

   UAB
9. L

   ODU
10. L

    MTSU
11. L

    USM
12. L

    FAU

What moved it, 2017

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−2.23
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.81

Game by game

• EMUL 7-24 at EMU17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• KSUL 7-55 at KSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• NCATL 31-35 vs NCAT84% → 5%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• GASTL 0-28 vs GAST51% → 0%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −54
• FIUL 29-30 at FIU22% → 20%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −2
• MRSHL 3-14 vs MRSH17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• WKUL 14-45 at WKU13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −15
• UABW 25-24 vs UAB25% → 87%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −22
• ODUL 0-6 at ODU25% → 3%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• MTSUL 21-35 vs MTSU14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• USML 21-66 at USM10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• FAUL 12-31 vs FAU5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1

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.