Florida Atlantic

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1049th
  Defense+0.228th
• 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.
  Offense41.7%42nd
  Defense45.5%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3894th
  Defense+1.3024th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0412th
  Defense+0.232nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2261st
  Defense+0.2332nd
• 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%44th
  Defense52.4%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.8%53rd
  Defense28.5%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7624th
  Defense3.0724th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%62nd
  Defense14.9%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%18th
  Defense13.9%22nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   MD
2. W
   FAMU
3. L
   FIU
4. L
   MEM
5. W
   RICE
6. W
   UAB
7. L
   USF
8. L
   NAVY
9. W
   TLSA
10. L
    TULN
11. L
    CONN
12. L
    ECU

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

Players, 2025

1. Caden VeltkampQB406 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 46th of 231 QBs
   1.44WAR0.65 to 2.14
2. Easton MesserWR81 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 50th of 451 WRs
   0.23WAR0.04 to 0.41
3. Jayshon PlattWR53 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 57th of 451 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.33
4. Gemari SandsRB86 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 164th of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Garrison SmithPK14 plays · +0.313 pts/play · 59th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
6. Michael KirchTE17 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 88th of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Kaden Shields-DuttonRB16 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 283rd of 365 RBs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Dominique HenryWR44 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 348th of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.04 to 0.11

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60560582nd of 134Roster talent: 605, 82nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714788th of 134Recruiting: 147, 88th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  21%21%94th of 132Returning production: 21%, 94th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.7−8.796th of 134SP+ rating: −8.7, 96th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.02 of the 0.06 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 FIUQ4 9:24 4th & 12 at FIU 14, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
2. at USFQ2 0:13 4th & 6 at USF 16, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
3. vs TLSAQ3 5:34 4th & 3 at TLSA 3, up 19Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs MEMQ4 13:15 4th & 9 at FAU 46, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at FIUQ3 2:30 4th & 10 at FIU 44, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at FIUQ1 0:29 4th & 2 at FAU 20, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs TLSAQ2 8:54 4th & 3 at FAU 32, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs CONNQ4 7:13 4th & 11 at CONN 33, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

81st of 136 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

   MD
2. W

   FAMU
3. L

   FIU
4. L

   MEM
5. W

   RICE
6. W

   UAB
7. L

   USF
8. L

   NAVY
9. W

   TLSA
10. L

    TULN
11. L

    CONN
12. L

    ECU

What moved it, 2025

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−0.66
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• MDL 7-39 at MD16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20
• FAMUW 56-14 vs FAMU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +11
• FIUL 28-38 at FIU42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• MEML 26-55 vs MEM19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24
• RICEW 27-21 at RICE40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• UABW 53-33 vs UAB65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +35
• USFL 13-48 at USF9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• NAVYL 32-42 at NAVY15% → 4%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position −1
• TLSAW 40-21 vs TLSA63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +37
• TULNL 24-35 at TULN15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• CONNL 45-48 vs CONN32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −37
• ECUL 3-42 vs ECU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35, Clock −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.