Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0734th
  Defense−0.0595th
• 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.
  Offense39.3%17th
  Defense36.7%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2571st
  Defense+1.0889th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0440th
  Defense−0.0383rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1137th
  Defense−0.0290th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%36th
  Defense43.0%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.3%4th
  Defense25.8%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7633rd
  Defense2.6274th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%61st
  Defense22.9%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense2.1%61st

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, 2015

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
   NMSU
2. W
   ECU
3. W
   UK
4. W
   TENN
5. W
   MISS
6. W
   MIZ
7. L
   LSU
8. W
   UGA
9. W
   VAN
10. W
    SC
11. W
    FAU
12. L
    FSU
13. L
    ALA
14. L
    MICH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2015

1. Treon HarrisQB271 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 91st of 205 QBs
   1.04WAR0.57 to 1.52
2. Will GrierQB162 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 109th of 205 QBs
   0.73WAR0.44 to 1.04
3. Kelvin TaylorRB232 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 19th of 333 RBs
   0.49WAR0.31 to 0.65
4. Brandon PowellWR55 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 204th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
5. Demarcus RobinsonWR62 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 231st of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.18
6. Antonio CallawayWR58 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 239th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.18
7. Johnny TownsendP73 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 47th of 92 punters
   0.09WAR−0.09 to 0.27
8. Austin HardinPK12 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 107th of 115 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  79079015th of 128Roster talent: 790, 15th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24724715th of 128Recruiting: 247, 15th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%80th of 127Returning production: 52%, 80th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.8+13.825th of 128SP+ rating: +13.8, 25th 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 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 FAUQ4 2:15 4th & 7 at FAU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
2. vs FAUQ4 1:02 4th & 9 at FAU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.9 pts
3. at LSUQ4 6:47 4th & 22 at LSU 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
4. at UKQ4 2:26 4th & 3 at midfield, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
5. vs TENNQ4 6:25 4th & 8 at TENN 21, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
6. at LSUQ1 2:32 4th & 1 at FLA 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at MIZQ3 6:45 4th & 3 at FLA 20, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs VANQ2 5:15 4th & 2 at VAN 49, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

19th 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

   NMSU
2. W

   ECU
3. W

   UK
4. W

   TENN
5. W

   MISS
6. W

   MIZ
7. L

   LSU
8. W

   UGA
9. W

   VAN
10. W

    SC
11. W

    FAU
12. L

    FSU
13. L

    ALA
14. L

    MICH

What moved it, 2015

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+1.44
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.35

Game by game

• NMSUW 61-13 vs NMSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• ECUW 31-24 vs ECU87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• UKW 14-9 at UK61% → 96%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• TENNW 28-27 vs TENN52% → 72%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +2
• MISSW 38-10 vs MISS31% → 100%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +58
• MIZW 21-3 at MIZ58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• LSUL 28-35 at LSU27% → 7%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position −2
• UGAW 27-3 vs UGA56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42, Clock −1
• VANW 9-7 vs VAN88% → 95%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• SCW 24-14 at SC74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• FAUW 20-14 vs FAU97% → 89%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −8: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts −5
• FSUL 2-27 vs FSU56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −58
• ALAL 15-29 at ALA13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• MICHL 7-41 vs MICH40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −43, Clock −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.