Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.0310th
  Defense+0.0664th
• 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.
  Offense41.0%31st
  Defense42.6%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.022nd
  Defense+1.2048th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0317th
  Defense+0.0746th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0213th
  Defense+0.0770th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%33rd
  Defense47.8%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.5%28th
  Defense30.4%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9158th
  Defense3.0128th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%62nd
  Defense14.9%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense2.8%87th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Florida Atlantic 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
   TLSA
2. L
   MIA
3. L
   BUF
4. W
   CLT
5. L
   RICE
6. L
   MRSH
7. L
   UTEP
8. W
   FIU
9. L
   WKU
10. L
    MTSU
11. L
    FLA
12. W
    ODU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida Atlantic.

Players, 2015

1. Jaquez JohnsonQB315 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 59th of 205 QBs
   1.47WAR0.85 to 1.98
2. Jason DriskelQB155 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 118th of 205 QBs
   0.65WAR0.39 to 0.92
3. Jenson StoshakWR80 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 47th of 411 WRs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.36
4. Trey RodriguezRB81 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 106th of 333 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.28
5. Dalton SchompP40 plays · +0.287 pts/play · 5th of 92 punters
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.30
6. Greg HowellRB130 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 120th of 333 RBs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.31
7. Greg Joseph?26 plays · +0.283 pts/play
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
8. Jay WarrenRB95 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 191st of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.00 to 0.22

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 Florida Atlantic'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40240290th of 128Roster talent: 402, 90th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12912984th of 128Recruiting: 129, 84th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%38th of 127Returning production: 76%, 38th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.8−9.8100th of 128SP+ rating: −9.8, 100th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Florida Atlantic's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.24 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 CLTQ4 8:51 4th & 1 at FAU 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.3 pts
2. vs RICEQ4 0:59 4th & 5 at RICE 41, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal4.2 pts
3. vs RICEQ3 1:23 4th & 3 at RICE 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.4 pts
4. vs MTSUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at FAU 12, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
5. vs FIUQ4 7:51 4th & 1 at FIU 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
6. at UTEPQ2 9:07 4th & 1 at FAU 15, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
7. vs BUFQ4 5:40 4th & 10 at BUF 15, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.1 pts
8. vs MRSHQ4 14:41 4th & 9 at MRSH 20, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

112th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Florida Atlantic's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   TLSA
2. L

   MIA
3. L

   BUF
4. W

   CLT
5. L

   RICE
6. L

   MRSH
7. L

   UTEP
8. W

   FIU
9. L

   WKU
10. L

    MTSU
11. L

    FLA
12. W

    ODU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Florida Atlantic'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−1.68
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.33

Game by game

• TLSAL 44-47 at TLSA9% → 14%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +5: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts +11
• MIAL 20-44 vs MIA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• BUFL 15-33 vs BUF54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• CLTW 17-7 at CLT76% → 97%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• RICEL 26-27 vs RICE55% → 17%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38, Clock −5
• MRSHL 17-33 vs MRSH37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• UTEPL 17-27 at UTEP70% → 4%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −3
• FIUW 31-17 vs FIU49% → 98%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• WKUL 19-35 at WKU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• MTSUL 17-24 vs MTSU34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• FLAL 14-20 at FLA3% → 11%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +8: Scoreboard −9, Timeouts +5
• ODUW 33-31 at ODU69% → 90%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from Florida Atlantic's side.

Closest call

UTEP 31-35 FAU (2016) - Florida Atlantic dropped to a 9.3% win probability before pulling it out.