Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0425th
  Defense+0.1337th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%40th
  Defense43.3%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.134th
  Defense+1.2645th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1161st
  Defense+0.0556th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.038th
  Defense+0.2331st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%48th
  Defense50.0%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.0%25th
  Defense28.1%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2687th
  Defense2.7964th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%84th
  Defense17.4%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.2%55th
  Defense14.5%28th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   LIU
2. L
   USF
3. L
   LSU
4. L
   MIA
5. W
   TEX
6. L
   TA&M
7. W
   MSST
8. L
   UGA
9. L
   UK
10. L
    MISS
11. L
    TENN
12. W
    FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Florida.

Players, 2025

1. DJ LagwayQB359 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 111th of 231 QBs
   0.69WAR−0.01 to 1.30
2. Jadan BaughRB212 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 11th of 365 RBs
   0.43WAR0.32 to 0.56
3. J. Michael SturdivantWR40 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 128th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
4. Trey SmackPK15 plays · +0.393 pts/play · 24th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
5. Vernell Brown IIIWR38 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.15
6. Tommy DomanP45 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 26th of 100 punters
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16
7. Ja'Kobi JacksonRB23 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 281st of 365 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
8. Eugene Wilson IIIWR29 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 332nd of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  89989912th of 134Roster talent: 899, 12th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26526512th of 134Recruiting: 265, 12th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%32nd of 132Returning production: 54%, 32nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.5+3.562nd of 134SP+ rating: +3.5, 62nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.10 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 USFQ4 5:52 4th & 4 at USF 46, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. vs UGAQ4 14:52 4th & 4 at UGA 36, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. at MIAQ4 11:20 4th & 2 at FLA 26, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. at MISSQ3 5:15 4th & 2 at FLA 48, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. vs FSUQ4 10:40 4th & 10 at FLA 23, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at TA&MQ3 7:08 4th & 2 at TA&M 27, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs USFQ4 2:25 4th & 8 at FLA 42, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs FSUQ4 7:38 4th & 4 at FSU 36, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

125th of 136 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

   LIU
2. L

   USF
3. L

   LSU
4. L

   MIA
5. W

   TEX
6. L

   TA&M
7. W

   MSST
8. L

   UGA
9. L

   UK
10. L

    MISS
11. L

    TENN
12. W

    FSU

What moved it, 2025

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−2.43
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.19
• Other+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.01

Game by game

• LIUW 55-0 vs LIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• USFL 16-18 vs USF92% → 5%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• LSUL 10-20 at LSU36% → 3%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• MIAL 7-26 at MIA33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• TEXW 29-21 vs TEX39% → 94%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• TA&ML 17-34 at TA&M31% → 7%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −57, Timeouts +25
• MSSTW 23-21 vs MSST77% → 90%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts −5
• UGAL 20-24 vs UGA33% → 5%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• UKL 7-38 at UK69% → 0%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −59, Other +1
• MISSL 24-34 at MISS28% → 3%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• TENNL 11-31 vs TENN46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• FSUW 40-21 vs FSU53% → 99%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +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.