Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1247th
  Defense+0.1151st
• 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.
  Offense44.3%59th
  Defense42.5%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3083rd
  Defense+1.2629th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1677th
  Defense+0.0270th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0829th
  Defense+0.2036th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%74th
  Defense48.4%42nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.1%19th
  Defense30.1%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8843rd
  Defense2.7472nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%22nd
  Defense21.8%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%31st
  Defense14.6%21st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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
   OU
2. W
   AF
3. W
   BCU
4. L
   UCF
5. L
   MTSU
6. W
   ODU
7. L
   MRSH
8. L
   LT
9. W
   FIU
10. W
    WKU
11. L
    UNT
12. L
    CLT

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

Players, 2018

1. Chris RobisonQB278 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 79th of 225 QBs
   1.07WAR0.63 to 1.57
2. Devin SingletaryRB211 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 9th of 351 RBs
   0.86WAR0.68 to 1.05
3. Kerrith Whyte Jr.RB99 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 119th of 351 RBs
   0.34WAR0.26 to 0.42
4. Jovon DuranteWR80 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 42nd of 434 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.29
5. Harrison BryantTE46 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 4th of 204 TEs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.24
6. Willie WrightWR60 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 217th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.17
7. Vladimir RivasPK14 plays · +0.305 pts/play · 81st of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. John RaineTE11 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 117th of 204 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53853867th of 130Roster talent: 538, 67th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15315374th of 130Recruiting: 153, 74th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%92nd of 129Returning production: 49%, 92nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.8−0.881st of 130SP+ rating: −0.8, 81st of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2018

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.12 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 UNTQ3 2:20 4th & 1 at FAU 30, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at FIUQ3 4:50 4th & 11 at FIU 28, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
3. vs LTQ3 14:06 4th & 12 at LT 32, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
4. at UNTQ3 12:37 4th & 2 at UNT 13, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs WKUQ4 13:27 4th & 4 at WKU 4, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at MRSHQ3 13:52 4th & 10 at MRSH 29, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at UNTQ2 0:47 4th & 2 at midfield, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at UNTQ2 9:22 4th & 1 at FAU 21, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

107th of 130 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. L

   OU
2. W

   AF
3. W

   BCU
4. L

   UCF
5. L

   MTSU
6. W

   ODU
7. L

   MRSH
8. L

   LT
9. W

   FIU
10. W

    WKU
11. L

    UNT
12. L

    CLT

What moved it, 2018

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−0.37
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.30

Game by game

• OUL 14-63 at OU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• AFW 33-26 vs AF67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• BCUW 49-28 vs BCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UCFL 36-56 at UCF14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19
• MTSUL 24-25 at MTSU55% → 27%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −7, Possession & field position −4
• ODUW 52-33 vs ODU82% → 98%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• MRSHL 7-31 at MRSH55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −50, Clock +1
• LTL 13-21 vs LT57% → 3%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• FIUW 49-14 at FIU45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +56
• WKUW 34-15 vs WKU88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16
• UNTL 38-41 at UNT37% → 12%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −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.