Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1146th
  Defense+0.321st
• 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.
  Offense43.3%47th
  Defense50.5%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1528th
  Defense+1.2622nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1472nd
  Defense+0.311st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0730th
  Defense+0.336th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.3%61st
  Defense54.8%3rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%23rd
  Defense38.5%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0865th
  Defense3.482nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%56th
  Defense14.0%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%61st
  Defense11.1%1st

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, 2016

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. W
   SIU
2. L
   MIA
3. L
   KSU
4. L
   BALL
5. L
   FIU
6. L
   CLT
7. L
   MRSH
8. L
   WKU
9. W
   RICE
10. W
    UTEP
11. L
    ODU
12. L
    MTSU

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

Players, 2016

1. Jason DriskelQB283 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 87th of 218 QBs
   0.94WAR0.46 to 1.42
2. Devin SingletaryRB135 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 50th of 347 RBs
   0.51WAR0.39 to 0.65
3. Dalton SchompP47 plays · +0.324 pts/play · 3rd of 82 punters
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.38
4. Gregory Howell Jr.RB112 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 140th of 347 RBs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.37
5. Kalib WoodsWR66 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 210th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
6. Henry Bussey IIIWR28 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 330th of 417 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Nate TerryWR27 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 351st of 417 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
8. Tyler CameronQB24 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 207th of 218 QBs
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.07

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40840892nd of 128Roster talent: 408, 92nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13013082nd of 128Recruiting: 130, 82nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%104th of 128Returning production: 42%, 104th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.1−14.1113th of 128SP+ rating: −14.1, 113th 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, 2016

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.19 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 UTEPQ3 0:25 4th & 1 at FAU 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. at FIUQ4 7:57 4th & 1 at FAU 20, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
3. vs BALLQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at BALL 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs BALLQ2 1:23 4th & 1 at BALL 1, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. vs CLTQ4 7:47 4th & 6 at FAU 48, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs BALLQ3 5:48 4th & 6 at BALL 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at RICEQ4 4:07 4th & 1 at RICE 11, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at MIAQ4 15:00 4th & 5 at FAU 31, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

99th 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   SIU
2. L

   MIA
3. L

   KSU
4. L

   BALL
5. L

   FIU
6. L

   CLT
7. L

   MRSH
8. L

   WKU
9. W

   RICE
10. W

    UTEP
11. L

    ODU
12. L

    MTSU

What moved it, 2016

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−0.78
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.01

Game by game

• SIUW 38-30 vs SIU76% → 97%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• MIAL 10-38 at MIA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• KSUL 7-63 at KSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• BALLL 27-31 vs BALL36% → 8%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• FIUL 31-33 at FIU59% → 18%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −3
• CLTL 23-28 vs CLT81% → 12%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• WKUL 3-52 vs WKU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• RICEW 42-25 at RICE45% → 98%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +55, Clock +2
• UTEPW 35-31 vs UTEP50% → 96%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position +1
• ODUL 24-42 vs ODU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• MTSUL 56-77 at MTSU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21

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.