Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1763rd
  Defense+0.1336th
• 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.
  Offense43.2%54th
  Defense43.6%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2552nd
  Defense+1.2835th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1265th
  Defense+0.1035th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2767th
  Defense+0.2921st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%38th
  Defense47.4%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.1%88th
  Defense35.2%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1865th
  Defense3.2129th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%58th
  Defense15.1%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%75th
  Defense15.4%39th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   OHIO
3. W
   SELA
4. L
   UCF
5. L
   PUR
6. L
   UNT
7. W
   RICE
8. L
   UTEP
9. W
   UAB
10. W
    FIU
11. L
    MTSU
12. L
    WKU

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

Players, 2022

1. N'Kosi PerryQB310 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 56th of 234 QBs
   1.28WAR0.71 to 1.95
2. Larry McCammonRB132 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 64th of 384 RBs
   0.37WAR0.23 to 0.51
3. Riley ThompsonP39 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 5th of 102 punters
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.23
4. Je'Quan BurtonWR31 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 108th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
5. Zuberi MobleyRB62 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 220th of 384 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
6. Johnny FordRB33 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 278th of 384 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. LaJohntay WesterWR57 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 329th of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.04 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55155171st of 129Roster talent: 551, 71st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714785th of 129Recruiting: 147, 85th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%14th of 128Returning production: 83%, 14th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.1−7.189th of 129SP+ rating: −7.1, 89th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.18 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 2:33 4th & 3 at FAU 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. vs WKUQ3 1:59 4th & 1 at FAU 15, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs UCFQ3 6:25 4th & 2 at UCF 2, down 15Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs UCFQ2 2:00 4th & 2 at FAU 28, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs CLTQ2 3:56 4th & 2 at CLT 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at OHIOQ3 8:43 4th & 3 at FAU 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs CLTQ3 7:42 4th & 2 at FAU 35, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs RICEQ3 10:32 4th & 11 at RICE 36, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

118th of 131 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

   OHIO
3. W

   SELA
4. L

   UCF
5. L

   PUR
6. L

   UNT
7. W

   RICE
8. L

   UTEP
9. W

   UAB
10. W

    FIU
11. L

    MTSU
12. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2022

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−1.14
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.08
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.13

Game by game

• CLTW 43-13 vs CLT67% → 85%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts −3
• OHIOL 38-41 at OHIO71% → 16%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position −3
• SELAW 42-9 vs SELA80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• UCFL 14-40 vs UCF29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• PURL 26-28 at PUR13% → 5%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• UNTL 28-45 at UNT59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −2
• RICEW 17-14 vs RICE66% → 77%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position +2
• UTEPL 21-24 at UTEP60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• UABW 24-17 vs UAB36% → 87%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +26, Clock +2
• FIUW 52-7 at FIU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• MTSUL 21-49 at MTSU66% → 0%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −57, Possession & field position −1
• WKUL 31-32 vs WKU35% → 59%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +23: Scoreboard −1, Possession & field position −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.