Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1771st
  Defense+0.0183rd
• 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.
  Offense42.3%38th
  Defense37.6%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3493rd
  Defense+1.2916th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0645th
  Defense−0.0688th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3081st
  Defense+0.0774th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%22nd
  Defense44.2%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.0%77th
  Defense25.5%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6822nd
  Defense2.4889th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.6%10th
  Defense22.9%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%66th
  Defense21.3%65th

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, 2019

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
   OSU
2. L
   UCF
3. W
   BALL
4. W
   WAG
5. W
   CLT
6. W
   MTSU
7. L
   MRSH
8. W
   ODU
9. W
   WKU
10. W
    FIU
11. W
    UTSA
12. W
    USM
13. W
    UAB
14. W
    SMU

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

Players, 2019

1. Chris RobisonQB416 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 58th of 228 QBs
   1.27WAR0.57 to 1.97
2. Malcolm DavidsonRB87 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 138th of 349 RBs
   0.32WAR0.23 to 0.39
3. James CharlesRB52 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 191st of 349 RBs
   0.21WAR0.17 to 0.25
4. Harrison BryantTE73 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 1st of 207 TEs
   0.19WAR0.04 to 0.33
5. Larry McCammonRB64 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 207th of 349 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.23
6. Tavaris HarrisonWR46 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 182nd of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
7. Deangelo AntoineWR69 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 184th of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.19
8. Matthew HayballP42 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 14th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52452475th of 130Roster talent: 524, 75th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216272nd of 130Recruiting: 162, 72nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%87th of 130Returning production: 52%, 87th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.6−0.663rd of 130SP+ rating: −0.6, 63rd 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, 2019

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.04 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 ODUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at ODU 7, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
2. at BALLQ3 5:33 4th & 3 at FAU 39, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at UTSAQ2 1:21 4th & 1 at FAU 19, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at OSUQ3 6:04 4th & 1 at FAU 13, down 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at WKUQ4 15:00 4th & 9 at WKU 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs SMUQ3 1:52 4th & 1 at FAU 40, up 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs UABQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at FAU 34, up 29Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs MRSHQ3 15:00 4th & 6 at MRSH 23, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

3rd 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.

1. L

   OSU
2. L

   UCF
3. W

   BALL
4. W

   WAG
5. W

   CLT
6. W

   MTSU
7. L

   MRSH
8. W

   ODU
9. W

   WKU
10. W

    FIU
11. W

    UTSA
12. W

    USM
13. W

    UAB
14. W

    SMU

What moved it, 2019

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+2.71
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.30

Game by game

• OSUL 21-45 at OSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• UCFL 14-48 vs UCF13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18
• BALLW 41-31 at BALL56% → 91%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• WAGW 42-7 vs WAG98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• CLTW 45-27 at CLT51% → 99%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• MTSUW 28-13 vs MTSU82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −1
• MRSHL 31-36 vs MRSH59% → 5%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• ODUW 41-3 at ODU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• WKUW 35-24 at WKU50% → 96%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• FIUW 37-7 vs FIU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• UTSAW 40-26 at UTSA92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• USMW 34-17 vs USM70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• UABW 49-6 vs UAB72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30
• SMUW 52-28 vs SMU31% → 100%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts +1

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.