North Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1859th
  Defense+0.277th
• 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.
  Offense46.0%76th
  Defense49.2%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1843rd
  Defense+1.2624th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1980th
  Defense+0.1917th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2050th
  Defense+0.396th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%69th
  Defense52.8%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.3%72nd
  Defense41.1%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1477th
  Defense3.2313th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%39th
  Defense18.2%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 North Carolina 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
   LIB
2. W
   SDSU
3. L
   ECU
4. L
   CLEM
5. L
   VT
6. L
   ND
7. W
   GT
8. W
   UVA
9. L
   MIA
10. W
    PITT
11. W
    DUKE
12. L
    NCSU
13. L
    RUTG

Bars above the line: better than expected for North Carolina.

Players, 2014

1. Marquise WilliamsQB519 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 8th of 199 QBs
   2.50WAR1.76 to 3.34
2. T.J. Logan?125 plays · +0.124 pts/play
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.38
3. Ryan SwitzerWR73 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 63rd of 469 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.33
4. Mack HollinsWR55 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 91st of 469 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.27
5. Elijah Hood?51 plays · +0.156 pts/play
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
6. Romar Morris?50 plays · +0.138 pts/play
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.16
7. Quinshad DavisWR50 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 174th of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.20
8. Tommy HibbardP54 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 33rd of 94 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18

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 North Carolina'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 North Carolina'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 0.13 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. vs PITTQ4 1:26 4th & 2 at PITT 29, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−8.1 pts
2. at NDQ3 3:37 4th & 2 at ND 2, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at UVAQ3 5:39 4th & 7 at UVA 38, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at NDQ3 10:34 4th & 7 at ND 33, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs GTQ4 7:53 4th & 5 at GT 46, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs RUTGQ3 6:33 4th & 3 at UNC 47, down 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs RUTGQ4 2:47 4th & 4 at RUTG 8, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UVAQ4 15:00 4th & 9 at UVA 38, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

80th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up North Carolina's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   LIB
2. W

   SDSU
3. L

   ECU
4. L

   CLEM
5. L

   VT
6. L

   ND
7. W

   GT
8. W

   UVA
9. L

   MIA
10. W

    PITT
11. W

    DUKE
12. L

    NCSU
13. L

    RUTG

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at North Carolina'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−1.14
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.27

Game by game

• LIBW 56-29 vs LIB96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +5
• SDSUW 31-27 vs SDSU83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• ECUL 41-70 at ECU54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −1
• CLEML 35-50 at CLEM23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• VTL 17-34 vs VT44% → 2%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• NDL 43-50 at ND13% → 3%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• GTW 48-43 vs GT58% → 75%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position +1
• UVAW 28-27 at UVA28% → 81%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +35, Clock +5
• MIAL 20-47 at MIA21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24
• PITTW 40-35 vs PITT55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +3
• DUKEW 45-20 at DUKE34% → 100%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +62, Timeouts +1
• NCSUL 7-35 vs NCSU68% → 0%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −65, Clock −2
• RUTGL 21-40 vs RUTG60% → 2%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −58, Clock −4

Points of win probability, from North Carolina's side.

Closest call

SC 17-31 UNC (2023) - North Carolina dropped to a 1.0% win probability before pulling it out.