Florida International

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense+0.1916th
• 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.
  Offense42.5%38th
  Defense49.1%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1946th
  Defense+1.1666th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0539th
  Defense+0.1813th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.029th
  Defense+0.2328th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%39th
  Defense54.7%4th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%27th
  Defense35.0%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0254th
  Defense3.581st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%35th
  Defense13.2%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%24th
  Defense13.0%11th

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, 2016

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

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

Players, 2016

1. Alex McGoughQB296 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 86th of 218 QBs
   0.95WAR0.47 to 1.41
2. Alex GardnerRB191 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 71st of 347 RBs
   0.43WAR0.24 to 0.61
3. Anthony JonesRB103 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 109th of 347 RBs
   0.33WAR0.24 to 0.41
4. Thomas OwensWR81 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 75th of 417 WRs
   0.20WAR0.08 to 0.31
5. Stantley ThomasWR44 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 178th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Austin TaylorPK15 plays · +0.372 pts/play · 51st of 116 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. Stone WilsonP49 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 64th of 82 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Maurice AlexanderWR27 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 306th of 417 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 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 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  363363110th of 128Roster talent: 363, 110th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114108th of 128Recruiting: 114, 108th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%49th of 128Returning production: 71%, 49th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.0−19.0125th of 128SP+ rating: −19.0, 125th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.16 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 IUQ4 11:01 4th & 4 at IU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.4 pts
2. vs IUQ3 6:28 4th & 3 at IU 46, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
3. vs LTQ4 15:00 4th & 16 at LT 33, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.3 pts
4. vs MRSHQ3 0:59 4th & 3 at MRSH 12, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
5. at MASSQ2 4:14 4th & 5 at MASS 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
6. vs IUQ4 5:26 4th & 17 at IU 43, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
7. at MASSQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at FIU 42, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
8. vs LTQ2 13:09 4th & 1 at FIU 19, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

66th 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.

1. L

   IU
2. L

   MD
3. L

   MASS
4. L

   UCF
5. W

   FAU
6. W

   UTEP
7. W

   CLT
8. L

   LT
9. L

   MTSU
10. L

    WKU
11. W

    MRSH
12. L

    ODU

What moved it, 2016

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−0.73
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.57

Game by game

• IUL 13-34 vs IU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• MDL 14-41 vs MD28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• MASSL 13-21 at MASS59% → 3%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• UCFL 14-53 vs UCF31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −37, Clock −1
• FAUW 33-31 vs FAU41% → 82%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +3
• UTEPW 35-21 at UTEP42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +57, Possession & field position −1
• CLTW 27-26 at CLT55% → 92%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• LTL 24-44 vs LT18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• MTSUL 35-42 vs MTSU13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• WKUL 21-49 at WKU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• MRSHW 31-14 vs MRSH42% → 98%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +44, Clock +1
• ODUL 28-42 at ODU17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1

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.