Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0519th
  Defense+0.0760th
• 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.
  Offense39.7%19th
  Defense40.5%66th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1426th
  Defense+1.2821st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0329th
  Defense−0.0689th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0623rd
  Defense+0.2133rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%19th
  Defense44.1%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.7%26th
  Defense33.7%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7731st
  Defense2.5087th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%45th
  Defense24.3%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%47th
  Defense17.2%67th

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, 2018

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
   FOR
2. L
   APP
3. W
   ODU
4. L
   MASS
5. L
   UAB
6. W
   WKU
7. L
   MTSU
8. W
   USM
9. L
   TENN
10. L
    MRSH
11. L
    FIU
12. W
    FAU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2018

1. Benny LeMayRB180 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 27th of 351 RBs
   0.66WAR0.51 to 0.82
2. Chris ReynoldsQB118 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 154th of 225 QBs
   0.39WAR0.22 to 0.57
3. Evan ShirreffsQB107 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 164th of 225 QBs
   0.31WAR0.16 to 0.50
4. Hasaan KlughQB54 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 183rd of 225 QBs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.32
5. Aaron McAllisterRB62 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 221st of 351 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
6. Victor TuckerWR57 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 140th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
7. Jonathan CruzPK14 plays · +0.440 pts/play · 44th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
8. Mark QuattlebaumWR27 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 299th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 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 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  311311123rd of 130Roster talent: 311, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  106106122nd of 130Recruiting: 106, 122nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  119%119%2nd of 129Returning production: 119%, 2nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.5−18.5118th of 130SP+ rating: −18.5, 118th 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, 2018

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.04 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 FIUQ4 2:04 4th & 2 at FIU 24, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
2. vs ODUQ2 4:27 4th & 3 at ODU 19, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at MASSQ3 4:16 4th & 12 at MASS 30, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs ODUQ2 0:28 4th & 11 at ODU 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at TENNQ2 10:22 4th & 2 at CLT 18, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at MASSQ1 3:29 4th & 2 at CLT 36, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs APPQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at CLT 46, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs USMQ3 5:58 4th & 2 at CLT 26, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

55th 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   FOR
2. L

   APP
3. W

   ODU
4. L

   MASS
5. L

   UAB
6. W

   WKU
7. L

   MTSU
8. W

   USM
9. L

   TENN
10. L

    MRSH
11. L

    FIU
12. W

    FAU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.35
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• FORW 34-10 vs FOR89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• APPL 9-45 vs APP23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29
• ODUW 28-25 vs ODU53% → 89%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• MASSL 31-49 at MASS35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −36
• UABL 7-28 at UAB15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• WKUW 40-14 vs WKU33% → 100%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +57, Timeouts +1
• MTSUL 13-21 at MTSU18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• USMW 20-17 vs USM38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts +2
• TENNL 3-14 at TENN9% → 2%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 13-30 at MRSH23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• FIUL 35-42 vs FIU46% → 10%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position −2

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.