Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1650th
  Defense+0.344th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%64th
  Defense47.6%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3267th
  Defense+1.435th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1043rd
  Defense+0.269th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2764th
  Defense+0.454th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.1%74th
  Defense51.3%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%50th
  Defense38.8%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0850th
  Defense3.2722nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%32nd
  Defense12.1%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%23rd
  Defense13.7%14th

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, 2021

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
   DUKE
2. W
   GWEB
3. L
   GAST
4. W
   MTSU
5. L
   ILL
6. W
   FIU
7. L
   FAU
8. L
   WKU
9. W
   RICE
10. L
    LT
11. L
    MRSH
12. L
    ODU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2021

1. Chris ReynoldsQB363 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 78th of 219 QBs
   1.27WAR0.65 to 1.85
2. Shadrick ByrdRB132 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 95th of 387 RBs
   0.41WAR0.30 to 0.52
3. Calvin CampRB114 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 116th of 387 RBs
   0.36WAR0.25 to 0.47
4. Grant DuBoseWR59 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 40th of 474 WRs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.29
5. Victor TuckerWR46 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 92nd of 474 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.23
6. Bailey RiceP35 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 73rd of 101 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Jonathan CruzPK14 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 89th of 128 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Ryan CarriereTE8 plays · −0.008 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46346388th of 130Roster talent: 463, 88th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130109th of 130Recruiting: 130, 109th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%38th of 128Returning production: 86%, 38th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.7−13.7114th of 130SP+ rating: −13.7, 114th 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, 2021

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 0.05 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 GASTQ2 2:27 4th & 1 at CLT 23, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
2. at LTQ4 11:06 4th & 16 at CLT 19, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.2 pts
3. at GASTQ4 8:58 4th & 5 at GAST 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
4. at WKUQ3 2:04 4th & 8 at CLT 29, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.3 pts
5. vs RICEQ4 6:35 4th & 5 at CLT 41, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.2 pts
6. at ODUQ4 1:03 4th & 16 at ODU 31, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.1 pts
7. at ODUQ4 1:03 4th & 16 at ODU 31, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.1 pts
8. at GASTQ4 0:29 4th & 20 at CLT 40, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

60th 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

   DUKE
2. W

   GWEB
3. L

   GAST
4. W

   MTSU
5. L

   ILL
6. W

   FIU
7. L

   FAU
8. L

   WKU
9. W

   RICE
10. L

    LT
11. L

    MRSH
12. L

    ODU

What moved it, 2021

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−0.47
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.37

Game by game

• DUKEW 31-28 vs DUKE33% → 84%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +20, Possession & field position +3
• GWEBW 38-10 vs GWEB94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• GASTL 9-20 at GAST38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −1
• MTSUW 42-39 vs MTSU62% → 93%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position −1
• ILLL 14-24 at ILL23% → 3%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• FIUW 45-33 at FIU52% → 94%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +52, Possession & field position −3
• FAUL 9-38 vs FAU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35
• WKUL 13-45 at WKU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• RICEW 31-24 vs RICE70% → 87%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −20
• LTL 32-42 at LT34% → 4%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 28-49 vs MRSH19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• ODUL 34-56 at ODU28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −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.