Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2082nd
  Defense+0.0468th
• 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.
  Offense48.1%86th
  Defense38.2%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1423rd
  Defense+1.1960th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2088th
  Defense+0.0654th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2366th
  Defense+0.0479th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.5%87th
  Defense42.4%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.5%76th
  Defense30.1%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3993rd
  Defense2.8556th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%88th
  Defense20.4%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.1%84th
  Defense19.0%84th

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, 2018

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
   CHSO
2. L
   UK
3. W
   CSU
4. W
   TENN
5. W
   MSST
6. W
   LSU
7. W
   VAN
8. L
   UGA
9. L
   MIZ
10. W
    SC
11. W
    IDHO
12. W
    FSU
13. W
    MICH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2018

1. Feleipe FranksQB347 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 100th of 225 QBs
   0.83WAR0.26 to 1.41
2. Jordan ScarlettRB126 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 71st of 351 RBs
   0.44WAR0.35 to 0.53
3. Lamical PerineRB130 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 93rd of 351 RBs
   0.40WAR0.31 to 0.50
4. Evan McPhersonPK16 plays · +0.394 pts/play · 40th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
5. Tommy TownsendP44 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 25th of 91 punters
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Kadarius ToneyWR40 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 227th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Josh HammondWR25 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 251st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Van JeffersonWR48 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 315th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83283213th of 130Roster talent: 832, 13th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25025016th of 130Recruiting: 250, 16th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%52nd of 129Returning production: 70%, 52nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.0+23.09th of 130SP+ rating: +23.0, 9th of 130 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, 2018

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.20 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 MSSTQ4 5:22 4th & 2 at MSST 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. vs LSUQ3 6:12 4th & 1 at FLA 17, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at MSSTQ4 11:54 4th & 7 at MSST 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs LSUQ2 6:33 4th & 1 at FLA 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at UGAQ4 11:12 4th & 3 at UGA 25, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs SCQ2 0:52 4th & 11 at SC 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
7. vs UKQ2 5:15 4th & 2 at UK 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at FSUQ2 0:56 4th & 3 at FSU 44, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

20th 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. W

   CHSO
2. L

   UK
3. W

   CSU
4. W

   TENN
5. W

   MSST
6. W

   LSU
7. W

   VAN
8. L

   UGA
9. L

   MIZ
10. W

    SC
11. W

    IDHO
12. W

    FSU
13. W

    MICH

What moved it, 2018

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+1.57
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• CHSOW 53-6 vs CHSO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• UKL 16-27 vs UK86% → 3%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• CSUW 48-10 vs CSU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• TENNW 47-21 at TENN61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• MSSTW 13-6 at MSST31% → 95%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• LSUW 27-19 vs LSU55% → 97%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• VANW 37-27 at VAN76% → 98%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• UGAL 17-36 at UGA28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• MIZL 17-38 vs MIZ68% → 1%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −62, Clock −2
• SCW 35-31 vs SC65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• IDHOW 63-10 vs IDHO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• FSUW 41-14 at FSU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36
• MICHW 41-15 at MICH35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +63, Possession & field position +1

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.