Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.053rd
  Defense+0.1048th
• 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.
  Offense34.4%2nd
  Defense40.5%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3275th
  Defense+1.2744th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0533rd
  Defense+0.0852nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.061st
  Defense+0.2442nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.5%5th
  Defense44.8%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.7%3rd
  Defense31.2%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8013th
  Defense2.9569th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.4%2nd
  Defense19.9%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.7%29th
  Defense14.7%17th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   SCST
2. L
   MD
3. L
   GAST
4. L
   FLA
5. L
   SMU
6. L
   NAVY
7. W
   ECU
8. L
   FAU
9. W
   TLSA
10. L
    MEM
11. L
    RICE
12. L
    USF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2023

1. Jalon JonesQB148 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 120th of 250 QBs
   0.56WAR0.27 to 0.93
2. Trexler IveyQB182 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 158th of 250 QBs
   0.32WAR−0.04 to 0.71
3. Terron KellmanRB63 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 204th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
4. Colin WeberTE33 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 49th of 212 TEs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
5. Shadrick ByrdRB49 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 232nd of 383 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
6. Grant GonyaP49 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 68th of 103 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Bryce KennonTE12 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 144th of 212 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Jake ClemonsTE7 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 182nd of 212 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55555579th of 130Roster talent: 555, 79th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118113th of 130Recruiting: 118, 113th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%121st of 128Returning production: 14%, 121st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.4−21.4126th of 130SP+ rating: −21.4, 126th 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, 2023

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.10 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 ECUQ4 2:29 4th & 2 at CLT 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.3 pts
2. at TLSAQ2 4:38 4th & 4 at TLSA 4, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs FAUQ4 5:15 4th & 20 at CLT 48, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at SMUQ2 8:20 4th & 3 at SMU 3, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs MEMQ4 2:58 4th & 3 at CLT 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs RICEQ3 5:59 4th & 8 at RICE 25, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at ECUQ3 7:38 4th & 5 at ECU 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at FLAQ4 4:18 4th & 5 at CLT 10, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

84th of 133 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

   SCST
2. L

   MD
3. L

   GAST
4. L

   FLA
5. L

   SMU
6. L

   NAVY
7. W

   ECU
8. L

   FAU
9. W

   TLSA
10. L

    MEM
11. L

    RICE
12. L

    USF

What moved it, 2023

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−1.69
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.11
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.82

Game by game

• SCSTW 24-3 vs SCST93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• MDL 20-38 at MD4% → 1%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −8
• GASTL 25-41 vs GAST29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• FLAL 7-22 at FLA3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7
• SMUL 16-34 at SMU5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• NAVYL 0-14 vs NAVY36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• ECUW 10-7 at ECU29% → 94%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +55, Clock +4
• FAUL 16-38 vs FAU33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• TLSAW 33-26 at TLSA36% → 49%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +10, Clock +2
• MEML 38-44 vs MEM17% → 10%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −12
• RICEL 7-28 vs RICE40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• USFL 14-48 at USF26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28

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.