Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1340th
  Defense+0.1445th
• 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.
  Offense41.3%37th
  Defense40.5%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3477th
  Defense+1.3230th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0831st
  Defense+0.1630th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2562nd
  Defense+0.1864th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%42nd
  Defense47.5%49th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.3%19th
  Defense26.1%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9533rd
  Defense2.8077th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%35th
  Defense18.8%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%34th
  Defense16.9%55th

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, 2021

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
   FLA
2. W
   GASO
3. W
   FOR
4. L
   AF
5. W
   FIU
6. L
   UAB
7. W
   CLT
8. W
   UTEP
9. L
   MRSH
10. L
    ODU
11. L
    WKU
12. L
    MTSU

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

Players, 2021

1. N'Kosi PerryQB310 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 69th of 219 QBs
   1.35WAR0.74 to 1.98
2. Johnny FordRB133 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 78th of 387 RBs
   0.46WAR0.32 to 0.60
3. Matthew HayballP46 plays · +0.286 pts/play · 4th of 101 punters
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.35
4. LaJohntay WesterWR66 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 100th of 474 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
5. Brandon RobinsonWR37 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 162nd of 474 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Malcolm DavidsonRB46 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 270th of 387 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. James CharlesRB37 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 279th of 387 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
8. Nick TrontiQB19 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 206th of 219 QBs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55355371st of 130Roster talent: 553, 71st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16516571st of 130Recruiting: 165, 71st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  98%98%8th of 128Returning production: 98%, 8th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.2−5.292nd of 130SP+ rating: −5.2, 92nd 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, 2021

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 0.03 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 FIUQ3 5:09 4th & 2 at FIU 2, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
2. vs MRSHQ2 3:01 4th & 3 at midfield, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
3. vs MTSUQ1 0:36 4th & 1 at FAU 39, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
4. vs UTEPQ2 14:09 4th & 1 at FAU 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
5. at AFQ1 5:48 4th & 1 at AF 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs MRSHQ4 1:55 4th & 8 at MRSH 18, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.4 pts
7. at WKUQ2 13:25 4th & 5 at WKU 15, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs MRSHQ1 3:28 4th & 6 at MRSH 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

116th 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

   FLA
2. W

   GASO
3. W

   FOR
4. L

   AF
5. W

   FIU
6. L

   UAB
7. W

   CLT
8. W

   UTEP
9. L

   MRSH
10. L

    ODU
11. L

    WKU
12. L

    MTSU

What moved it, 2021

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−1.70
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.05
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.34

Game by game

• FLAL 14-35 at FLA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12
• GASOW 38-6 vs GASO74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• FORW 45-14 vs FOR98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• AFL 7-31 at AF44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• FIUW 58-21 vs FIU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29
• UABL 14-31 at UAB46% → 4%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• CLTW 38-9 at CLT70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35
• UTEPW 28-25 vs UTEP78% → 88%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +2
• MRSHL 13-28 vs MRSH52% → 3%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −54, Clock −2
• ODUL 16-30 at ODU67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −3
• WKUL 17-52 at WKU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −35
• MTSUL 17-27 vs MTSU66% → 4%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3

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.