Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0114th
  Defense−0.1399th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%34th
  Defense35.9%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1013th
  Defense+1.1571st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0116th
  Defense−0.0690th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0422nd
  Defense−0.1999th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%24th
  Defense39.8%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.9%69th
  Defense29.1%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8335th
  Defense2.7569th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%59th
  Defense25.0%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%34th
  Defense19.1%83rd

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, 2016

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
   MASS
2. W
   UK
3. W
   UNT
4. L
   TENN
5. W
   VAN
6. W
   MIZ
7. W
   UGA
8. L
   ARK
9. W
   SC
10. W
    LSU
11. L
    FSU
12. L
    ALA
13. W
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2016

1. Austin ApplebyQB194 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 107th of 218 QBs
   0.73WAR0.37 to 1.10
2. Jordan ScarlettRB140 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 44th of 347 RBs
   0.53WAR0.38 to 0.68
3. Luke Del RioQB125 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 132nd of 218 QBs
   0.47WAR0.28 to 0.64
4. Eddy PineiroPK18 plays · +0.488 pts/play · 18th of 116 kickers
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.23
5. Lamical PerineRB65 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 212th of 347 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.21
6. Johnny TownsendP50 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 50th of 82 punters
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.25
7. Antonio CallawayWR66 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 171st of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.23
8. Brandon PowellWR53 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 210th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  79879816th of 128Roster talent: 798, 16th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25225215th of 128Recruiting: 252, 15th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%119th of 128Returning production: 31%, 119th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.4+15.420th of 128SP+ rating: +15.4, 20th 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.13 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 TENNQ3 10:58 4th & 1 at FLA 19, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. at LSUQ3 3:01 4th & 2 at FLA 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at VANQ4 8:17 4th & 4 at VAN 9, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at UGAQ2 6:51 4th & 2 at FLA 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at VANQ3 2:47 4th & 3 at FLA 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs MIZQ3 12:32 4th & 2 at MIZ 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at TENNQ2 0:44 4th & 3 at TENN 48, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at UGAQ3 10:54 4th & 3 at UGA 16, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

27th 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

   MASS
2. W

   UK
3. W

   UNT
4. L

   TENN
5. W

   VAN
6. W

   MIZ
7. W

   UGA
8. L

   ARK
9. W

   SC
10. W

    LSU
11. L

    FSU
12. L

    ALA
13. W

    IOWA

What moved it, 2016

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+1.15
• Clock+0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.24

Game by game

• MASSW 24-7 vs MASS99% → 98%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +5
• UKW 45-7 vs UK85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• UNTW 32-0 vs UNT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TENNL 28-38 at TENN25% → 3%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• VANW 13-6 at VAN73% → 95%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• MIZW 40-14 vs MIZ80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• UGAW 24-10 at UGA64% → 98%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• ARKL 10-31 at ARK61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −52
• SCW 20-7 vs SC85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• LSUW 16-10 at LSU18% → 85%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• FSUL 13-31 at FSU30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +1
• ALAL 16-54 vs ALA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• IOWAW 30-3 at IOWA53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, 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.