Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0528th
  Defense+0.341st
• 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%76th
  Defense50.1%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2549th
  Defense+1.3612th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0433rd
  Defense+0.265th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2245th
  Defense+0.591st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.6%80th
  Defense53.9%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%63rd
  Defense39.8%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1558th
  Defense3.3215th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%35th
  Defense16.4%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%56th
  Defense12.4%6th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   FAU
2. L
   W&M
3. L
   MD
4. W
   GAST
5. L
   SC
6. L
   UTEP
7. L
   UAB
8. L
   FIU
9. W
   RICE
10. L
    WKU
11. L
    MTSU
12. W
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2022

1. Chris ReynoldsQB308 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 65th of 234 QBs
   1.18WAR0.59 to 1.83
2. Shadrick ByrdRB119 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 107th of 384 RBs
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.39
3. Grant DuBoseWR47 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 59th of 455 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.27
4. Elijah SpencerWR43 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 94th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.23
5. ChaVon McEachernRB43 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 257th of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Victor TuckerWR32 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
7. Bailey RiceP35 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 60th of 102 punters
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Calvin CampRB14 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 304th of 384 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48748782nd of 129Roster talent: 487, 82nd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  129129108th of 129Recruiting: 129, 108th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%12th of 128Returning production: 84%, 12th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.4−16.4116th of 129SP+ rating: −16.4, 116th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.05 of the 0.12 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 RICEQ3 11:58 4th & 8 at CLT 42, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
2. at MTSUQ3 11:50 4th & 1 at CLT 32, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs W&MQ3 8:33 4th & 3 at W&M 47, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at FAUQ3 9:07 4th & 10 at FAU 27, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs LTQ3 13:56 4th & 2 at CLT 43, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs FIUQ3 6:31 4th & 9 at FIU 9, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs LTQ4 8:35 4th & 8 at LT 41, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs LTQ2 1:23 4th & 3 at CLT 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

91st of 131 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

   FAU
2. L

   W&M
3. L

   MD
4. W

   GAST
5. L

   SC
6. L

   UTEP
7. L

   UAB
8. L

   FIU
9. W

   RICE
10. L

    WKU
11. L

    MTSU
12. W

    LT

What moved it, 2022

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−1.29
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.09
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.72

Game by game

• FAUL 13-43 at FAU33% → 15%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts +3
• W&ML 24-41 vs W&M63% → 5%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• MDL 21-56 vs MD4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• GASTW 42-41 at GAST11% → 87%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +36, Clock +3
• SCL 20-56 at SC7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9
• UTEPL 35-41 vs UTEP43% → 13%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• UABL 20-34 at UAB8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• FIUL 15-34 vs FIU86% → 1%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −66, Clock −3
• RICEW 56-23 at RICE19% → 100%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +69, Other +1
• WKUL 7-59 vs WKU21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27
• MTSUL 14-24 at MTSU27% → 3%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• LTW 26-21 vs LT51% → 95%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +5

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.