Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2075th
  Defense+0.2013th
• 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.
  Offense43.8%64th
  Defense37.9%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3070th
  Defense+1.561st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1155th
  Defense+0.1330th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3067th
  Defense+0.3023rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%80th
  Defense42.8%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%42nd
  Defense28.5%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0945th
  Defense2.9866th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%28th
  Defense17.8%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%46th
  Defense15.9%45th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   UTAH
2. W
   MCN
3. W
   TENN
4. W
   CLT
5. L
   UK
6. W
   VAN
7. W
   SC
8. L
   UGA
9. L
   ARK
10. L
    LSU
11. L
    MIZ
12. L
    FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2023

1. Graham MertzQB300 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 82nd of 250 QBs
   1.13WAR0.47 to 1.78
2. Trevor EtienneRB111 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 54th of 383 RBs
   0.35WAR0.23 to 0.45
3. Ricky PearsallWR56 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 26th of 457 WRs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.39
4. Montrell Johnson Jr.RB141 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 122nd of 383 RBs
   0.22WAR0.08 to 0.35
5. Jeremy CrawshawP39 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 14th of 103 punters
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
6. Max BrownQB40 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 216th of 250 QBs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
7. Eugene Wilson IIIWR51 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 196th of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.02 to 0.21
8. Arlis BoardinghamTE20 plays · +0.231 pts/play · 67th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84584515th of 130Roster talent: 845, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26026012th of 130Recruiting: 260, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%95th of 128Returning production: 37%, 95th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.8+6.841st of 130SP+ rating: +6.8, 41st 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, 2023

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 FSUQ2 6:29 4th & 1 at FLA 32, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs FSUQ2 10:21 4th & 1 at FSU 17, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs FSUQ4 13:15 4th & 3 at FLA 30, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs CLTQ4 2:28 4th & 1 at CLT 6, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at SCQ4 9:11 4th & 11 at SC 49, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
6. at SCQ2 2:31 4th & 3 at FLA 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at MIZQ4 13:14 4th & 4 at FLA 31, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
8. vs FSUQ4 1:33 4th & 20 at FLA 15, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

96th of 133 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

   UTAH
2. W

   MCN
3. W

   TENN
4. W

   CLT
5. L

   UK
6. W

   VAN
7. W

   SC
8. L

   UGA
9. L

   ARK
10. L

    LSU
11. L

    MIZ
12. L

    FSU

What moved it, 2023

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−0.96
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.43

Game by game

• UTAHL 11-24 at UTAH28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• MCNW 49-7 vs MCN100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TENNW 29-16 vs TENN36% → 97%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +45, Possession & field position −2
• CLTW 22-7 vs CLT97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• UKL 14-33 at UK48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −44
• VANW 38-14 vs VAN90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• SCW 41-39 at SC48% → 93%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• UGAL 20-43 vs UGA17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• ARKL 36-39 vs ARK60% → 12%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −20
• LSUL 35-52 at LSU12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• MIZL 31-33 at MIZ21% → 13%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position −2
• FSUL 15-24 vs FSU31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −39, 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.