Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1766th
  Defense+0.1526th
• 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.
  Offense39.8%27th
  Defense45.4%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4899th
  Defense+1.2550th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2188th
  Defense+0.1321st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2042nd
  Defense+0.2242nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%28th
  Defense48.2%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%43rd
  Defense39.2%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1863rd
  Defense3.2032nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%38th
  Defense15.1%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.6%80th
  Defense13.9%18th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   UTAH
2. L
   UK
3. W
   USF
4. L
   TENN
5. W
   EWU
6. W
   MIZ
7. L
   LSU
8. L
   UGA
9. W
   TA&M
10. W
    SC
11. L
    VAN
12. L
    FSU
13. L
    ORST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2022

1. Anthony RichardsonQB354 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 39th of 234 QBs
   1.61WAR0.86 to 2.45
2. Montrell Johnson Jr.RB140 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 59th of 384 RBs
   0.39WAR0.24 to 0.54
3. Trevor EtienneRB97 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 84th of 384 RBs
   0.32WAR0.23 to 0.41
4. Ricky PearsallWR48 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 75th of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
5. Justin ShorterWR42 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 185th of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.20
6. Jeremy CrawshawP33 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 30th of 102 punters
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
7. Nay'Quan WrightRB37 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 276th of 384 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Adam MihalekPK19 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 46th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85785712th of 129Roster talent: 857, 12th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26126112th of 129Recruiting: 261, 12th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%106th of 128Returning production: 31%, 106th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.4+10.434th of 129SP+ rating: +10.4, 34th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 VANQ4 3:13 4th & 10 at VAN 16, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
2. vs LSUQ4 1:04 4th & 20 at FLA 27, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
3. at UGAQ4 8:59 4th & 11 at UGA 15, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs MIZQ2 9:31 4th & 5 at MIZ 33, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs MIZQ2 9:31 4th & 5 at MIZ 33, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs SCQ3 7:14 4th & 7 at SC 18, up 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at FSUQ4 0:39 4th & 12 at FSU 26, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs UKQ4 0:28 4th & 7 at FLA 28, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

98th of 131 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

   UTAH
2. L

   UK
3. W

   USF
4. L

   TENN
5. W

   EWU
6. W

   MIZ
7. L

   LSU
8. L

   UGA
9. W

   TA&M
10. W

    SC
11. L

    VAN
12. L

    FSU
13. L

    ORST

What moved it, 2022

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−0.28
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.36

Game by game

• UTAHW 29-26 vs UTAH40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +3
• UKL 16-26 vs UK61% → 3%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• USFW 31-28 vs USF94% → 10%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• TENNL 33-38 at TENN19% → 96%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• EWUW 52-17 vs EWU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MIZW 24-17 vs MIZ76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 35-45 vs LSU53% → 4%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• UGAL 20-42 at UGA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• TA&MW 41-24 at TA&M38% → 99%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
• SCW 38-6 vs SC69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32
• VANL 24-31 at VAN80% → 11%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position +2
• FSUL 38-45 at FSU22% → 3%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• ORSTL 3-30 at ORST30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31

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.