Florida International

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1150th
  Defense+0.1530th
• 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.
  Offense43.5%57th
  Defense45.6%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1636th
  Defense+1.2440th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0127th
  Defense+0.0743rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2574th
  Defense+0.2619th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.4%43rd
  Defense49.9%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%82nd
  Defense36.3%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0071st
  Defense2.9146th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%84th
  Defense21.3%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%38th
  Defense15.0%33rd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   UCF
2. W
   ALCN
3. W
   RICE
4. W
   CLT
5. L
   MTSU
6. W
   TULN
7. W
   MRSH
8. W
   UTSA
9. L
   ODU
10. L
    FAU
11. W
    WKU
12. W
    MASS
13. L
    TEM

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

Players, 2017

1. Alex McGoughQB344 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 49th of 226 QBs
   1.40WAR0.76 to 2.10
2. Alex GardnerRB170 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 88th of 352 RBs
   0.32WAR0.16 to 0.45
3. Shawndarrius PhillipsRB86 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 178th of 352 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
4. Napoleon MaxwellRB63 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 182nd of 352 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.22
5. Thomas OwensWR72 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 62nd of 426 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
6. Austin MaloneyWR28 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 286th of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
7. Tony Gaiter IVWR32 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 306th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Darrius ScottWR21 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 319th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  334334106th of 130Roster talent: 334, 106th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12012096th of 130Recruiting: 120, 96th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%38th of 128Returning production: 72%, 38th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.4−10.4102nd of 128SP+ rating: −10.4, 102nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 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. at RICEQ4 0:57 4th & 13 at FIU 8, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.4 pts
2. vs CLTQ4 7:22 4th & 1 at CLT 10, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs TEMQ3 11:12 4th & 8 at TEM 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs WKUQ4 11:04 4th & 1 at FIU 29, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs ODUQ3 8:30 4th & 9 at ODU 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs ODUQ4 0:20 4th & 10 at ODU 11, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
7. at MRSHQ1 2:58 4th & 1 at FIU 36, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs UTSAQ4 0:24 4th & 6 at UTSA 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

6th of 130 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

   UCF
2. W

   ALCN
3. W

   RICE
4. W

   CLT
5. L

   MTSU
6. W

   TULN
7. W

   MRSH
8. W

   UTSA
9. L

   ODU
10. L

    FAU
11. W

    WKU
12. W

    MASS
13. L

    TEM

What moved it, 2017

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+1.59
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.31

Game by game

• UCFL 17-61 at UCF14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• ALCNW 17-10 vs ALCN92% → 91%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• RICEW 13-7 at RICE54% → 93%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• CLTW 30-29 vs CLT78% → 80%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +2
• MTSUL 17-37 at MTSU28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30
• TULNW 23-10 vs TULN26% → 98%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +3
• MRSHW 41-30 at MRSH19% → 97%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• UTSAW 14-7 vs UTSA32% → 93%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• ODUL 30-37 vs ODU79% → 12%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• FAUL 24-52 at FAU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• WKUW 41-17 vs WKU46% → 99%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +47
• MASSW 63-45 vs MASS44% → 99%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +2
• TEML 3-28 vs TEM37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −41, Clock −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.