Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0514th
  Defense+0.0391st
• 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.
  Offense38.1%12th
  Defense38.5%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1221st
  Defense+1.1476th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0426th
  Defense−0.0491st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1020th
  Defense+0.0991st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.0%12th
  Defense43.6%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.2%20th
  Defense28.9%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7030th
  Defense2.6476th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%46th
  Defense21.7%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.7%14th
  Defense3.1%95th

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, 2014

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 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
   EMU
2. W
   UK
3. L
   ALA
4. W
   TENN
5. L
   LSU
6. L
   MIZ
7. W
   UGA
8. W
   VAN
9. L
   SC
10. W
    EKU
11. L
    FSU
12. W
    ECU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2014

1. Jeff DriskelQB202 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 113th of 199 QBs
   0.85WAR0.54 to 1.15
2. Treon HarrisQB143 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 139th of 199 QBs
   0.55WAR0.30 to 0.85
3. Matt JonesRB144 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 58th of 350 RBs
   0.32WAR0.22 to 0.42
4. Kelvin TaylorRB93 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 117th of 350 RBs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.27
5. Kyle ChristyP53 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 39th of 94 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
6. Demarcus RobinsonWR71 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 193rd of 469 WRs
   0.11WAR0.00 to 0.21
7. Brandon PowellWR25 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 347th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. Austin HardinPK8 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 106th of 114 kickers
   0.04WAR0.01 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'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.24 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 LSUQ4 1:49 4th & 1 at LSU 1, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
2. vs LSUQ4 8:42 4th & 4 at LSU 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
3. at VANQ3 4:48 4th & 1 at FLA 20, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs SCQ2 4:49 4th & 3 at SC 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs MIZQ3 13:01 4th & 1 at FLA 41, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at UGAQ3 2:25 4th & 2 at FLA 39, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs MIZQ2 6:40 4th & 1 at FLA 35, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at UGAQ3 5:09 4th & 4 at UGA 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

72nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Florida's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   EMU
2. W

   UK
3. L

   ALA
4. W

   TENN
5. L

   LSU
6. L

   MIZ
7. W

   UGA
8. W

   VAN
9. L

   SC
10. W

    EKU
11. L

    FSU
12. W

    ECU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Florida'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−0.03
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.21
• Timeouts−0.31
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• EMUW 65-0 vs EMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UKW 36-30 vs UK88% → 87%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts −13
• ALAL 21-42 at ALA13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18
• TENNW 10-9 at TENN50% → 93%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• LSUL 27-30 vs LSU48% → 6%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• MIZL 13-42 vs MIZ63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −61, Clock −2
• UGAW 38-20 at UGA24% → 99%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +64, Clock +3
• VANW 34-10 at VAN86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• SCL 20-23 vs SC60% → 12%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −19
• EKUW 52-3 vs EKU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• FSUL 19-24 at FSU23% → 4%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• ECUW 28-20 vs ECU71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from Florida's side.

Closest call

USF 28-31 FLA (2022) - Florida dropped to a 2.5% win probability before pulling it out.