Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0635th
  Defense+0.0853rd
• 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.
  Offense40.5%26th
  Defense39.2%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1843rd
  Defense+1.3411th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0966th
  Defense+0.0457th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0220th
  Defense+0.1352nd
• 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%43rd
  Defense40.8%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%22nd
  Defense36.4%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9967th
  Defense2.6474th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%60th
  Defense23.4%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%9th
  Defense18.8%78th

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, 2017

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. L
   MICH
2. W
   TENN
3. W
   UK
4. W
   VAN
5. L
   LSU
6. L
   TA&M
7. L
   UGA
8. L
   MIZ
9. L
   SC
10. W
    UAB
11. L
    FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2017

1. Feleipe FranksQB246 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 150th of 226 QBs
   0.32WAR−0.08 to 0.79
2. Lamical PerineRB139 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 96th of 352 RBs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.40
3. Eddy PineiroPK17 plays · +0.724 pts/play · 3rd of 110 kickers
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.29
4. Malik DavisRB81 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 144th of 352 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.28
5. Mark ThompsonRB55 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 237th of 352 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Malik ZaireQB58 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 197th of 226 QBs
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.19
7. Brandon PowellWR62 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 194th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
8. Luke Del RioQB27 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 199th of 226 QBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  79479418th of 130Roster talent: 794, 18th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25225214th of 130Recruiting: 252, 14th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%26th of 128Returning production: 80%, 26th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.1+10.134th of 128SP+ rating: +10.1, 34th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.14 of the 0.18 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 TA&MQ4 6:35 4th & 1 at FLA 36, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.2 pts
2. vs LSUQ4 10:33 4th & 1 at FLA 24, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. at MIZQ2 7:32 4th & 1 at MIZ 21, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs TENNQ3 0:34 4th & 4 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs VANQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at VAN 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at SCQ3 10:19 4th & 2 at FLA 43, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs MICHQ2 7:02 4th & 3 at MICH 30, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs LSUQ2 14:48 4th & 1 at FLA 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

121st of 130 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. L

   MICH
2. W

   TENN
3. W

   UK
4. W

   VAN
5. L

   LSU
6. L

   TA&M
7. L

   UGA
8. L

   MIZ
9. L

   SC
10. W

    UAB
11. L

    FSU

What moved it, 2017

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−1.67
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.01

Game by game

• MICHL 17-33 vs MICH38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −45, Clock −1
• TENNW 26-20 vs TENN72% → 96%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• UKW 28-27 at UK61% → 82%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +35, Clock +4
• VANW 38-24 vs VAN74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• LSUL 16-17 vs LSU45% → 5%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• TA&ML 17-19 vs TA&M64% → 10%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• UGAL 7-42 vs UGA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• MIZL 16-45 at MIZ47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −44
• SCL 20-28 at SC39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• UABW 36-7 vs UAB80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +22
• FSUL 22-38 vs FSU39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: 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.