Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0316th
  Defense+0.2314th
• 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.
  Offense37.1%9th
  Defense45.3%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4999th
  Defense+1.3035th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0636th
  Defense+0.1814th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0114th
  Defense+0.3012th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.7%6th
  Defense50.5%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.8%29th
  Defense33.5%20th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7515th
  Defense3.2721st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%20th
  Defense15.5%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%18th
  Defense15.8%45th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   JMU
2. L
   UNC
3. W
   GWEB
4. L
   IU
5. W
   RICE
6. W
   ECU
7. L
   NAVY
8. L
   MEM
9. L
   TULN
10. L
    USF
11. W
    FAU
12. W
    UAB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2024

1. Deshawn PurdieQB173 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 114th of 232 QBs
   0.64WAR0.28 to 1.03
2. Max BrownQB63 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 176th of 232 QBs
   0.21WAR0.07 to 0.35
3. O'Mega BlakeWR32 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 66th of 452 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
4. Cartevious NortonRB96 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 178th of 373 RBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.23
5. Hahsaun WilsonRB59 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 183rd of 373 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
6. Sean BrownWR29 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 169th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
7. Terron KellmanRB33 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 266th of 373 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
8. Jairus MackWR14 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 199th of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64864865th of 131Roster talent: 648, 65th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  123123111th of 131Recruiting: 123, 111th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%32nd of 130Returning production: 62%, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.3−15.3115th of 131SP+ rating: −15.3, 115th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.01 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. vs GWEBQ4 9:35 4th & 7 at GWEB 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
2. at FAUQ3 10:11 4th & 3 at FAU 23, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at FAUQ2 0:34 4th & 3 at FAU 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs UABQ2 1:56 4th & 4 at UAB 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs JMUQ4 14:15 4th & 5 at CLT 41, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at UNCQ2 12:35 4th & 3 at UNC 3, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs JMUQ2 0:15 4th & 2 at CLT 47, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs JMUQ3 9:25 4th & 6 at JMU 46, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

38th of 134 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

   JMU
2. L

   UNC
3. W

   GWEB
4. L

   IU
5. W

   RICE
6. W

   ECU
7. L

   NAVY
8. L

   MEM
9. L

   TULN
10. L

    USF
11. W

    FAU
12. W

    UAB

What moved it, 2024

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−0.27
• Possession & field position−0.11
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.06
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• JMUL 7-30 vs JMU40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• UNCL 20-38 at UNC8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• GWEBW 27-26 vs GWEB83% → 80%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position +2
• IUL 14-52 at IU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• RICEW 21-20 at RICE41% → 66%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position −5
• ECUW 55-24 vs ECU29% → 100%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +61, Timeouts −1
• NAVYL 17-51 at NAVY18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20
• MEML 28-33 at MEM13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −1
• TULNL 3-34 vs TULN19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• USFL 24-59 vs USF50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• FAUW 39-27 at FAU64% → 98%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• UABW 29-27 vs UAB51% → 57%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +5: Possession & field position −5, Timeouts −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.