Charlotte

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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−0.094th
  Defense+0.259th
• 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.
  Offense35.4%7th
  Defense49.0%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1521st
  Defense+1.2347th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.089th
  Defense+0.1425th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.009th
  Defense+0.463rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%12th
  Defense52.3%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.2%3rd
  Defense41.0%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.558th
  Defense3.0139th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.4%7th
  Defense22.3%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.7%3rd
  Defense10.8%3rd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   CIT
2. L
   MISS
3. L
   APP
4. L
   UL
5. L
   MEM
6. L
   UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Charlotte.

Players, 2026

1. Cole GonzalesQB59 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 158th of 192 QBs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.13
2. Conner HarrellQB15 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 177th of 192 QBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
3. Jaden BarnesWR20 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
4. Khamani AlexanderRB8 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 277th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  577577104th of 138Roster talent: 577, 104th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  113113126th of 138Recruiting: 113, 126th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%65th of 136Returning production: 41%, 65th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −28.6−28.6138th of 138SP+ rating so far: −28.6, 138th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.03 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 ULQ3 5:36 4th & 1 at CLT 22, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
2. vs ULQ4 6:38 4th & 6 at UL 26, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at APPQ2 3:12 4th & 3 at APP 44, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs MEMQ1 10:36 4th & 1 at CLT 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. at APPQ1 11:50 4th & 14 at APP 26, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at UNTQ3 8:33 4th & 1 at CLT 34, down 37Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at APPQ1 2:53 4th & 8 at APP 30, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at UNTQ3 3:07 4th & 12 at UNT 35, down 37Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

134th of 138 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

   CIT
2. L

   MISS
3. L

   APP
4. L

   UL
5. L

   MEM
6. L

   UNT

What moved it, 2026

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−0.84
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.07

Game by game

• CITL 41-43 vs CIT90% → 41%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −49: Timeouts −19, Clock +12
• MISSL 9-41 at MISS1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• APPL 21-26 at APP15% → 4%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −2
• ULL 7-34 vs UL24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −30
• MEML 8-59 vs MEM13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• UNTL 10-50 at UNT6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9

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.