Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1139th
  Defense+0.1148th
• 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.
  Offense39.2%21st
  Defense40.6%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4397th
  Defense+1.3813th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1572nd
  Defense+0.1139th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1232nd
  Defense+0.1356th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.0%12th
  Defense45.3%65th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%52nd
  Defense31.7%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1565th
  Defense3.0935th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%50th
  Defense17.1%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%36th
  Defense16.5%54th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   MSU
2. L
   ARMY
3. W
   FIU
4. L
   CONN
5. W
   WAG
6. L
   UNT
7. L
   UTSA
8. L
   USF
9. L
   ECU
10. L
    TEM
11. L
    CLT
12. W
    TLSA

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

Players, 2024

1. Cam FancherQB261 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 99th of 232 QBs
   0.86WAR0.38 to 1.35
2. CJ Campbell Jr.RB159 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 51st of 373 RBs
   0.39WAR0.27 to 0.52
3. Tyriq StarksQB57 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 159th of 232 QBs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.40
4. Zuberi MobleyRB78 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 165th of 373 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
5. Kasen WeismanQB36 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 187th of 232 QBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
6. Logan LupoP45 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 38th of 106 punters
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
7. Omari HayesWR37 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 174th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.16
8. Wyatt SullivanTE10 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 112th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.05

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59259280th of 131Roster talent: 592, 80th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14414488th of 131Recruiting: 144, 88th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  3%3%129th of 130Returning production: 3%, 129th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.7−12.7110th of 131SP+ rating: −12.7, 110th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.08 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 TEMQ3 13:10 4th & 1 at FAU 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. at TEMQ4 6:13 4th & 5 at FAU 30, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs ARMYQ4 13:57 4th & 8 at ARMY 24, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs USFQ2 14:13 4th & 1 at FAU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs USFQ2 14:13 4th & 1 at FAU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at ECUQ2 15:00 4th & 12 at ECU 45, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs WAGQ3 6:24 4th & 3 at WAG 11, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs UNTQ4 10:11 4th & 6 at UNT 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

129th of 134 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

   MSU
2. L

   ARMY
3. W

   FIU
4. L

   CONN
5. W

   WAG
6. L

   UNT
7. L

   UTSA
8. L

   USF
9. L

   ECU
10. L

    TEM
11. L

    CLT
12. W

    TLSA

What moved it, 2024

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−2.05
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• MSUL 10-16 at MSU18% → 6%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts +3
• ARMYL 7-24 vs ARMY53% → 1%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• FIUW 38-20 vs FIU57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +42, Clock −2
• CONNL 14-48 at CONN46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −44
• WAGW 41-10 vs WAG98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• UNTL 37-41 vs UNT34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• UTSAL 24-38 at UTSA37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −37
• USFL 21-44 vs USF36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• ECUL 14-49 at ECU29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30
• TEML 15-18 at TEM43% → 44%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3, Clock +2
• CLTL 27-39 vs CLT36% → 2%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• TLSAW 63-16 at TLSA41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +58, 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.