Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1148th
  Defense+0.1539th
• 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.
  Offense39.4%25th
  Defense48.4%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3890th
  Defense+1.1588th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0441st
  Defense+0.0845th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2057th
  Defense+0.2437th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%40th
  Defense52.6%15th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.4%19th
  Defense37.0%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7634th
  Defense3.1921st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%41st
  Defense18.0%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%12th
  Defense12.5%9th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   APP
2. L
   FAU
3. W
   UNT
4. W
   UTEP
5. L
   DUKE
6. L
   WKU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2020

1. Chris ReynoldsQB184 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 62nd of 212 QBs
   0.59WAR0.26 to 0.94
2. Tre HarbisonRB69 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 126th of 338 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.31
3. Victor TuckerWR40 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 58th of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
4. Aaron McAllisterRB40 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 232nd of 338 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.15
5. Micaleous ElderWR36 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 246th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
6. Tyler RingwoodWR12 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 313th of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05
7. Cameron DollarWR15 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 320th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Connor BowlerP24 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 36th of 77 punters
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46246281st of 127Roster talent: 462, 81st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  124124117th of 127Recruiting: 124, 117th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%18th of 127Returning production: 84%, 18th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.6−6.696th of 127SP+ rating: −6.6, 96th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.07 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 APPQ4 5:13 4th & 10 at APP 20, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.7 pts
2. at FAUQ4 0:26 4th & 15 at FAU 21, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
3. vs WKUQ2 14:44 4th & 17 at CLT 34, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
4. at DUKEQ4 9:29 4th & 9 at CLT 29, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
5. at APPQ2 12:10 4th & 2 at CLT 33, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at UNTQ2 12:16 4th & 3 at CLT 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at UNTQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at CLT 26, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at APPQ3 3:15 4th & 7 at APP 32, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

101st of 127 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

   APP
2. L

   FAU
3. W

   UNT
4. W

   UTEP
5. L

   DUKE
6. L

   WKU

What moved it, 2020

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−0.69
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.08

Game by game

• APPL 20-35 at APP14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• FAUL 17-21 at FAU40% → 11%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• UNTW 49-21 at UNT60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +44, Clock +1
• UTEPW 38-28 vs UTEP90% → 97%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16
• DUKEL 19-53 at DUKE27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −28
• WKUL 19-37 vs WKU62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, 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.