Florida International

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1426th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%36th
  Defense48.6%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1945th
  Defense+1.1083rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0650th
  Defense+0.1320th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1241st
  Defense+0.1745th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%48th
  Defense54.1%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.1%31st
  Defense35.6%30th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7126th
  Defense2.8550th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%34th
  Defense21.2%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense1.9%47th

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, 2015

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. W
   UCF
2. L
   IU
3. W
   NCCU
4. L
   LT
5. L
   MASS
6. W
   UTEP
7. L
   MTSU
8. W
   ODU
9. L
   FAU
10. W
    CLT
11. L
    MRSH
12. L
    WKU

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

Players, 2015

1. Alex McGoughQB369 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 60th of 205 QBs
   1.46WAR0.88 to 2.06
2. Alex GardnerRB179 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 56th of 333 RBs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.47
3. Thomas OwensWR65 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 81st of 411 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.30
4. Clinton TaylorWR36 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 239th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
5. Austin TaylorPK10 plays · +0.396 pts/play · 95th of 115 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
6. Anthon SamuelRB18 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 245th of 333 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
7. Ya'Keem GrinerTE18 plays · +0.027 pts/play · 17th of 189 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.03 to 0.04
8. Anthony JonesRB7 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 312th of 333 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  360360104th of 128Roster talent: 360, 104th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111107th of 128Recruiting: 111, 107th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%57th of 127Returning production: 67%, 57th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.6−16.6118th of 128SP+ rating: −16.6, 118th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.09 of the 0.15 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 UCFQ4 3:22 4th & 1 at FIU 35, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.5 pts
2. vs CLTQ3 12:56 4th & 1 at CLT 45, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs ODUQ3 10:25 4th & 3 at FIU 48, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at IUQ2 14:55 4th & 1 at FIU 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs NCCUQ2 5:03 4th & 1 at FIU 29, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at UCFQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at FIU 29, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at MTSUQ3 7:38 4th & 4 at MTSU 4, down 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at IUQ4 3:58 4th & 10 at IU 32, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

88th 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 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   UCF
2. L

   IU
3. W

   NCCU
4. L

   LT
5. L

   MASS
6. W

   UTEP
7. L

   MTSU
8. W

   ODU
9. L

   FAU
10. W

    CLT
11. L

    MRSH
12. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2015

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−0.81
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.19

Game by game

• UCFW 15-14 at UCF14% → 90%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• IUL 22-36 at IU33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• NCCUW 39-14 vs NCCU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• LTL 17-27 at LT19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• MASSL 14-24 at MASS42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• UTEPW 52-12 vs UTEP85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• MTSUL 34-42 at MTSU30% → 4%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30
• ODUW 41-12 vs ODU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +17
• FAUL 17-31 at FAU51% → 2%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• CLTW 48-31 vs CLT90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• MRSHL 0-52 at MRSH26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28

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.