Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2079th
  Defense0.0085th
• 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.
  Offense45.9%74th
  Defense38.8%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3085th
  Defense+1.1956th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0218th
  Defense−0.0690th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3691st
  Defense+0.0681st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.6%57th
  Defense44.7%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.4%89th
  Defense28.7%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6013th
  Defense2.2499th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.3%20th
  Defense23.0%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%78th
  Defense22.7%82nd

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, 2019

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
   MIA
2. W
   UTM
3. W
   UK
4. W
   TENN
5. W
   TOW
6. W
   AUB
7. L
   LSU
8. W
   SC
9. L
   UGA
10. W
    VAN
11. W
    MIZ
12. W
    FSU
13. W
    UVA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2019

1. Kyle TraskQB315 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 35th of 228 QBs
   1.55WAR0.99 to 2.14
2. Lamical PerineRB137 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 69th of 349 RBs
   0.48WAR0.36 to 0.59
3. Emory JonesQB42 plays · +0.299 pts/play · 171st of 228 QBs
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.32
4. Feleipe FranksQB59 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 184th of 228 QBs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.30
5. Freddie SwainWR49 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 135th of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
6. Evan McPhersonPK13 plays · +0.472 pts/play · 63rd of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Van JeffersonWR52 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 192nd of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
8. Tommy TownsendP33 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 21st of 100 punters
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83683615th of 130Roster talent: 836, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26226212th of 130Recruiting: 262, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%10th of 130Returning production: 86%, 10th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.0+24.07th of 130SP+ rating: +24.0, 7th 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, 2019

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 0.08 of the 0.15 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 MIAQ3 1:20 4th & 1 at FLA 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. vs UGAQ4 3:25 4th & 2 at UGA 6, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
3. vs AUBQ2 0:00 4th & 9 at FLA 33, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.7 pts
4. at UKQ2 2:37 4th & 2 at UK 10, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs AUBQ3 12:18 4th & 2 at FLA 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at LSUQ2 14:53 4th & 1 at FLA 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at SCQ3 0:00 4th & 7 at SC 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs AUBQ4 3:12 4th & 7 at AUB 35, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

23rd 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

   MIA
2. W

   UTM
3. W

   UK
4. W

   TENN
5. W

   TOW
6. W

   AUB
7. L

   LSU
8. W

   SC
9. L

   UGA
10. W

    VAN
11. W

    MIZ
12. W

    FSU
13. W

    UVA

What moved it, 2019

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+1.85
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.45

Game by game

• MIAW 24-20 vs MIA74% → 95%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27
• UTMW 45-0 vs UTM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• UKW 29-21 at UK79% → 96%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• TENNW 34-3 vs TENN81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +21
• TOWW 38-0 vs TOW98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• AUBW 24-13 vs AUB49% → 98%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• LSUL 28-42 at LSU17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• SCW 38-27 at SC62% → 97%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• UGAL 17-24 vs UGA34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• VANW 56-0 vs VAN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MIZW 23-6 at MIZ74% → 98%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• FSUW 40-17 vs FSU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16, Clock −1
• UVAW 36-28 at UVA87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +23, Clock +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.