Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0214th
  Defense+0.1245th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%20th
  Defense43.3%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2651st
  Defense+1.1780th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1570th
  Defense+0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.049th
  Defense+0.3118th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%49th
  Defense48.8%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.5%6th
  Defense32.4%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3383rd
  Defense3.2621st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.5%97th
  Defense11.4%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%6th
  Defense15.0%23rd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   MONM
2. L
   OHIO
3. L
   CLEM
4. L
   ILL
5. W
   TLSA
6. W
   USF
7. L
   UTSA
8. W
   CLT
9. L
   UAB
10. L
    ECU
11. L
    TULN
12. L
    RICE

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

Players, 2023

1. Daniel RichardsonQB271 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 116th of 250 QBs
   0.66WAR0.00 to 1.34
2. Larry McCammonRB148 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 51st of 383 RBs
   0.36WAR0.21 to 0.49
3. Casey ThompsonQB47 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 184th of 250 QBs
   0.20WAR0.08 to 0.33
4. LaJohntay WesterWR109 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 125th of 457 WRs
   0.14WAR−0.10 to 0.39
5. Kobe LewisRB80 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 198th of 383 RBs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19
6. Je'Quan BurtonWR32 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 160th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.19
7. Logan LupoP44 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 38th of 103 punters
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Zeke MooreTE15 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 163rd of 212 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58358371st of 130Roster talent: 583, 71st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14314388th of 130Recruiting: 143, 88th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%77th of 128Returning production: 45%, 77th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.4−9.498th of 130SP+ rating: −9.4, 98th 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, 2023

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 0.11 of the 0.17 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 UABQ4 1:33 4th & 2 at FAU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.9 pts
2. at CLTQ3 9:34 4th & 1 at FAU 12, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at ILLQ4 14:11 4th & 14 at ILL 17, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. at ILLQ2 4:46 4th & 1 at FAU 42, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at ILLQ4 13:33 4th & 10 at ILL 13, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
6. at CLTQ4 12:10 4th & 3 at FAU 46, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs OHIOQ4 4:31 4th & 10 at FAU 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs TLSAQ2 0:58 4th & 3 at TLSA 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

120th of 133 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

   MONM
2. L

   OHIO
3. L

   CLEM
4. L

   ILL
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   USF
7. L

   UTSA
8. W

   CLT
9. L

   UAB
10. L

    ECU
11. L

    TULN
12. L

    RICE

What moved it, 2023

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−1.38
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.02

Game by game

• MONMW 42-20 vs MONM94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• OHIOL 10-17 vs OHIO55% → 15%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, Clock −4
• CLEML 14-48 at CLEM4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• ILLL 17-23 at ILL15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• TLSAW 20-17 vs TLSA63% → 96%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• USFW 56-14 at USF42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +57, Clock +2
• UTSAL 10-36 vs UTSA39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −44
• CLTW 38-16 at CLT67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• UABL 42-45 at UAB52% → 4%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −3
• ECUL 7-22 vs ECU73% → 1%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3
• TULNL 8-24 vs TULN26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• RICEL 21-24 at RICE39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −32, 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.