Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0324th
  Defense+0.0381st
• 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.
  Offense39.0%22nd
  Defense39.7%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2442nd
  Defense+1.1879th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0442nd
  Defense+0.0362nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0223rd
  Defense+0.0487th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%16th
  Defense43.8%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%49th
  Defense31.3%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8648th
  Defense3.0236th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.8%32nd
  Defense19.3%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.2%17th
  Defense16.2%47th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   CLT
2. L
   MRSH
3. W
   UTSA
4. W
   WKU
5. W
   FIU
6. W
   MASS
7. L
   GASO
8. L
   USM
9. L
   MEM

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

Players, 2020

1. Nick TrontiQB175 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 102nd of 212 QBs
   0.32WAR0.03 to 0.62
2. James CharlesRB82 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 98th of 338 RBs
   0.31WAR0.25 to 0.37
3. Malcolm DavidsonRB30 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 244th of 338 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.13
4. Javion PoseyWR37 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 169th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
5. BJ EmmonsRB24 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 258th of 338 RBs
   0.08WAR0.07 to 0.10
6. T.J. ChaseWR29 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Larry McCammonRB20 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 274th of 338 RBs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.07
8. Matthew HayballP12 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 41st of 77 punters
   0.02WAR0.01 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48948976th of 127Roster talent: 489, 76th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16916969th of 127Recruiting: 169, 69th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%117th of 127Returning production: 27%, 117th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.3−0.372nd of 127SP+ rating: −0.3, 72nd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.09 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 WKUQ4 3:10 4th & 1 at WKU 12, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal4.1 pts
2. vs MEMQ4 3:50 4th & 10 at MEM 17, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.3 pts
3. at GASOQ2 1:31 4th & 13 at GASO 37, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
4. at FIUQ4 8:31 4th & 8 at FAU 36, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.5 pts
5. at GASOQ4 4:42 4th & 6 at GASO 14, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs MEMQ4 4:33 4th & 7 at MEM 37, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts
7. at USMQ2 11:18 4th & 4 at USM 22, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts
8. vs CLTQ4 13:00 4th & 2 at FAU 33, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

69th of 127 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. W

   CLT
2. L

   MRSH
3. W

   UTSA
4. W

   WKU
5. W

   FIU
6. W

   MASS
7. L

   GASO
8. L

   USM
9. L

   MEM

What moved it, 2020

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−0.21
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.14

Game by game

• CLTW 21-17 vs CLT60% → 89%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• MRSHL 9-20 at MRSH10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −16
• UTSAW 24-3 vs UTSA58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +41
• WKUW 10-6 vs WKU69% → 96%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +1
• FIUW 38-19 at FIU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +30
• MASSW 24-2 vs MASS98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• GASOL 3-20 at GASO52% → 1%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −47, Clock +1
• USML 31-45 at USM71% → 1%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts −1
• MEML 10-25 vs MEM25% → 2%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −33, 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.