Florida International

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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−0.0111th
  Defense−0.0793rd
• 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.
  Offense39.0%15th
  Defense33.8%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1315th
  Defense+1.1480th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.096th
  Defense−0.0681st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1023rd
  Defense−0.0591st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.4%16th
  Defense41.4%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.2%36th
  Defense21.4%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.537th
  Defense2.3791st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%23rd
  Defense20.0%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%28th
  Defense18.2%77th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   USF
2. W
   BUF
3. L
   FAU
4. W
   LIU
5. W
   NMSU
6. L
   JXST

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

Players, 2026

1. JJ KohlQB151 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 71st of 192 QBs
   0.27WAR0.04 to 0.47
2. Maguire AndersonWR28 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 55th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
3. Anthony CarrieRB54 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
4. Jojo StoneWR20 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 136th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
5. Devonte LyonsRB37 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 191st of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Robert CzeremchaPK7 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 20th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
7. Kyle McNealWR14 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 215th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. James ResarTE20 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 89th of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60860890th of 138Roster talent: 608, 90th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615694th of 138Recruiting: 156, 94th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%86th of 136Returning production: 32%, 86th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.4−5.495th of 138SP+ rating so far: −5.4, 95th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.04 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 FAUQ4 5:27 4th & 4 at FAU 9, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
2. vs NMSUQ4 10:12 4th & 3 at NMSU 3, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs BUFQ4 8:22 4th & 2 at BUF 18, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs BUFQ2 7:00 4th & 3 at FIU 44, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs LIUQ4 1:54 4th & 4 at midfield, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at USFQ2 5:00 4th & 12 at USF 38, down 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

89th of 138 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

   USF
2. W

   BUF
3. L

   FAU
4. W

   LIU
5. W

   NMSU
6. L

   JXST

What moved it, 2026

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−0.02
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.01

Game by game

• USFL 9-19 at USF18% → 4%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +1
• BUFW 33-20 vs BUF74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• FAUL 10-16 at FAU33% → 14%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• LIUW 20-3 vs LIU98% → 98%Before kickoff +48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +6
• NMSUW 22-3 vs NMSU70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position −1
• JXSTL 24-27 at JXST39% → 17%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −22: 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.