Florida International

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0923rd
  Defense+0.362nd
• 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.
  Offense36.3%8th
  Defense51.4%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4898th
  Defense+1.2271st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0013th
  Defense+0.296th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2042nd
  Defense+0.455th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.0%5th
  Defense57.7%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%29th
  Defense33.5%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9330th
  Defense3.566th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%62nd
  Defense13.9%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.3%3rd
  Defense11.9%2nd

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, 2021

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
   LIU
2. L
   TXST
3. L
   TTU
4. L
   CMU
5. L
   FAU
6. L
   CLT
7. L
   WKU
8. L
   MRSH
9. L
   ODU
10. L
    MTSU
11. L
    UNT
12. L
    USM

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

Players, 2021

1. Max BortenschlagerQB261 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 116th of 219 QBs
   0.61WAR0.05 to 1.13
2. D'Vonte PriceRB114 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 105th of 387 RBs
   0.38WAR0.26 to 0.50
3. Tommy HeatherlyP53 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 5th of 101 punters
   0.23WAR0.10 to 0.35
4. Tyrese ChambersWR35 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 137th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Lexington JosephRB33 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 281st of 387 RBs
   0.11WAR0.09 to 0.14
6. Shaun Peterson Jr.DE32 plays · +0.176 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.13
7. Bryce SingletonWR33 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 240th of 474 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
8. Chase GabrielPK9 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 113th of 128 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52152175th of 130Roster talent: 521, 75th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016076th of 130Recruiting: 160, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  160%160%2nd of 128Returning production: 160%, 2nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.6−21.6125th of 130SP+ rating: −21.6, 125th of 130 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, 2021

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.22 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 TXSTQ3 2:55 4th & 1 at TXST 1, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
2. at CMUQ4 2:00 4th & 2 at CMU 49, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at CMUQ4 14:54 4th & 11 at CMU 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
4. vs WKUQ2 10:19 4th & 1 at WKU 49, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs ODUQ3 12:35 4th & 4 at ODU 42, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at MRSHQ2 0:04 4th & 1 at MRSH 27, down 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs ODUQ2 1:29 4th & 1 at FIU 43, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs TXSTQ3 6:22 4th & 3 at FIU 28, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

130th 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. W

   LIU
2. L

   TXST
3. L

   TTU
4. L

   CMU
5. L

   FAU
6. L

   CLT
7. L

   WKU
8. L

   MRSH
9. L

   ODU
10. L

    MTSU
11. L

    UNT
12. L

    USM

What moved it, 2021

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−3.23
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• LIUW 48-10 vs LIU98% → 22%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position +2
• TXSTL 17-23 vs TXST71% → 10%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −20
• TTUL 21-54 at TTU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −16
• CMUL 27-31 at CMU26% → 96%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• FAUL 21-58 at FAU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29
• CLTL 33-45 vs CLT48% → 6%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −52, Possession & field position +3
• WKUL 19-34 vs WKU25% → 2%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• MRSHL 0-38 at MRSH12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• ODUL 24-47 vs ODU43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• MTSUL 10-50 at MTSU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34
• UNTL 7-49 vs UNT34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• USML 17-37 at USM26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30

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.