Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.101st
  Defense+0.1914th
• 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.
  Offense34.2%2nd
  Defense53.9%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2664th
  Defense+1.0599th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.231st
  Defense+0.1710th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0613th
  Defense+0.2429th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.5%3rd
  Defense59.9%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.7%10th
  Defense35.4%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.131st
  Defense3.334th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.9%7th
  Defense13.6%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%11th
  Defense10.6%1st

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UNC
3. W
   MONM
4. L
   RICE
5. L
   USF
6. L
   ARMY
7. L
   TEM
8. L
   UNT
9. L
   ECU
10. L
    UTSA
11. L
    UGA
12. L
    TULN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2025

1. Conner HarrellQB68 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 150th of 231 QBs
   0.33WAR0.19 to 0.46
2. Grayson LoftisQB112 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 161st of 231 QBs
   0.26WAR0.04 to 0.47
3. Javen NicholasWR40 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 143rd of 451 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22
4. Sean BrownWR23 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 169th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
5. Zach WilckeQB21 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 209th of 231 QBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
6. Gus McGeeTE17 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 123rd of 213 TEs
   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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  526526108th of 134Roster talent: 526, 108th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9999125th of 134Recruiting: 99, 125th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%85th of 132Returning production: 24%, 85th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −26.7−26.7132nd of 134SP+ rating: −26.7, 132nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.04 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. vs UNTQ4 13:57 4th & 11 at CLT 23, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.6 pts
2. vs UNTQ3 8:17 4th & 3 at UNT 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs RICEQ2 2:23 4th & 3 at RICE 23, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs MONMQ2 7:07 4th & 9 at MONM 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs UTSAQ4 2:15 4th & 5 at UTSA 17, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs APPQ1 1:21 4th & 4 at APP 25, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs UNCQ3 10:39 4th & 6 at UNC 20, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at ECUQ1 3:04 4th & 1 at CLT 15, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

93rd of 136 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

   UNC
3. W

   MONM
4. L

   RICE
5. L

   USF
6. L

   ARMY
7. L

   TEM
8. L

   UNT
9. L

   ECU
10. L

    UTSA
11. L

    UGA
12. L

    TULN

What moved it, 2025

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−1.33
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.07
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• APPL 11-34 vs APP22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −8
• UNCL 3-20 vs UNC11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• MONMW 42-35 vs MONM56% → 98%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• RICEL 17-28 vs RICE40% → 6%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position +2
• USFL 26-54 at USF3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• ARMYL 7-24 at ARMY12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts +1
• TEML 14-49 vs TEM21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position +1
• UNTL 20-54 vs UNT5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• ECUL 22-48 at ECU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• UTSAL 7-28 vs UTSA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• UGAL 3-35 at UGA0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• TULNL 0-27 at TULN3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −4

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.