Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1871st
  Defense+0.229th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%72nd
  Defense44.8%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3291st
  Defense+1.3112th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1886th
  Defense+0.243rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1949th
  Defense+0.2138th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%65th
  Defense48.9%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.0%81st
  Defense35.9%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1077th
  Defense3.288th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%71st
  Defense17.2%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%85th
  Defense20.7%59th

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, 2019

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
   GWEB
2. L
   APP
3. W
   MASS
4. L
   CLEM
5. L
   FAU
6. L
   FIU
7. L
   WKU
8. W
   UNT
9. W
   MTSU
10. W
    UTEP
11. W
    MRSH
12. W
    ODU
13. L
    BUF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2019

1. Chris ReynoldsQB340 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 34th of 228 QBs
   1.55WAR0.92 to 2.19
2. Benny LeMayRB159 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 33rd of 349 RBs
   0.61WAR0.47 to 0.73
3. Victor TuckerWR63 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 67th of 439 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
4. Aaron McAllisterRB59 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 204th of 349 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.23
5. Cameron DollarWR50 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 210th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
6. Jonathan CruzPK10 plays · +0.473 pts/play · 85th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Connor BowlerP24 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 89th of 100 punters
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04
8. Jacob HuntTE9 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 132nd of 207 TEs
   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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  386386109th of 130Roster talent: 386, 109th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  113113119th of 130Recruiting: 113, 119th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%34th of 130Returning production: 74%, 34th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.3−6.394th of 130SP+ rating: −6.3, 94th 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.08 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 MRSHQ4 0:48 4th & 10 at MRSH 25, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
2. at UTEPQ3 0:44 4th & 3 at UTEP 17, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs MTSUQ2 3:05 4th & 4 at MTSU 31, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs MTSUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at MTSU 21, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at UTEPQ4 2:42 4th & 6 at UTEP 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs MRSHQ4 9:07 4th & 4 at CLT 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs MTSUQ4 0:16 4th & 10 at MTSU 27, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs UNTQ2 8:21 4th & 3 at CLT 26, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

41st 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. W

   GWEB
2. L

   APP
3. W

   MASS
4. L

   CLEM
5. L

   FAU
6. L

   FIU
7. L

   WKU
8. W

   UNT
9. W

   MTSU
10. W

    UTEP
11. W

    MRSH
12. W

    ODU
13. L

    BUF

What moved it, 2019

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+0.12
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.40

Game by game

• GWEBW 49-28 vs GWEB97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• APPL 41-56 at APP7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• MASSW 52-17 vs MASS93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• CLEML 10-52 at CLEM1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• FAUL 27-45 vs FAU49% → 1%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −51, Clock −2
• FIUL 23-48 at FIU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32
• WKUL 14-30 at WKU24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• UNTW 39-38 vs UNT36% → 69%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +8, Possession & field position −1
• MTSUW 34-20 vs MTSU43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• UTEPW 28-21 at UTEP82% → 94%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• MRSHW 24-13 vs MRSH32% → 99%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +51, Possession & field position +1
• ODUW 38-22 at ODU79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• BUFL 9-31 vs BUF37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −43, Clock −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.