Florida International

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.018th
  Defense+0.0390th
• 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.
  Offense36.2%6th
  Defense37.4%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.078th
  Defense+1.356th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0013th
  Defense−0.0389th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0412th
  Defense+0.1185th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.8%10th
  Defense43.3%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.8%7th
  Defense26.3%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5316th
  Defense2.6972nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%65th
  Defense20.9%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.6%2nd
  Defense2.5%76th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 International 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
   BCU
2. W
   WAG
3. L
   PITT
4. L
   LOU
5. W
   UAB
6. W
   FAU
7. L
   UTSA
8. L
   MRSH
9. L
   RICE
10. L
    ODU
11. W
    MTSU
12. L
    UNT

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

Players, 2014

1. Alex McGoughQB271 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 117th of 199 QBs
   0.83WAR0.39 to 1.24
2. Anthon SamuelRB101 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 102nd of 350 RBs
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.30
3. Alex GardnerRB100 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 112th of 350 RBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
4. Napoleon MaxwellRB56 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 210th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
5. Glenn ColemanWR34 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 220th of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Austin TaylorPK12 plays · +0.396 pts/play · 75th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Jose LaphitzondoPK51 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 81st of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.17
8. Clinton TaylorWR6 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 416th of 469 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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 International'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 International'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 0.32 of the 0.38 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 BCUQ4 0:05 4th & 7 at BCU 29, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−27.6 pts
2. vs BCUQ3 3:35 4th & 4 at BCU 35, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
3. at ODUQ4 5:43 4th & 2 at FIU 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs FAUQ3 11:18 4th & 3 at FAU 20, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at UABQ4 14:17 4th & 4 at UAB 8, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs MTSUQ4 4:23 4th & 4 at MTSU 43, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs FAUQ2 0:46 4th & 10 at FAU 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs RICEQ2 1:27 4th & 4 at RICE 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

70th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Florida International's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 10 of 12 games; 2 have no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   BCU
2. W

   WAG
3. L

   PITT
4. L

   LOU
5. W

   UAB
6. W

   FAU
7. L

   UTSA
8. L

   MRSH
9. L

   RICE
10. L

    ODU
11. W

    MTSU
12. L

    UNT

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Florida International'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−0.23
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• BCUL 12-14 vs BCU58% → 18%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• LOUL 3-34 vs LOU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10
• UABW 34-20 at UAB21% → 99%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +64, Clock +3
• FAUW 38-10 vs FAU31% → 100%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +59, Possession & field position −1
• UTSAL 13-16 at UTSA23% → 15%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −2
• MRSHL 13-45 vs MRSH9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14
• RICEL 17-31 vs RICE34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• ODUL 35-38 at ODU41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −1
• MTSUW 38-28 vs MTSU46% → 95%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• UNTL 14-17 at UNT52% → 12%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −3

Points of win probability, from Florida International's side.

Closest call

FIU 27-26 CLT (2016) - Florida International dropped to a 5.1% win probability before pulling it out.