North Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.3097th
  Defense+0.0857th
• 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.
  Offense50.1%94th
  Defense46.7%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3191st
  Defense+1.0198th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2696th
  Defense+0.169th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3793rd
  Defense−0.0393rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.2%87th
  Defense52.2%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense42.2%98th
  Defense32.1%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5499th
  Defense3.481st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.5%96th
  Defense12.9%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%88th
  Defense1.8%40th

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, 2015

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. L
   SC
2. W
   NCAT
3. W
   ILL
4. W
   DEL
5. W
   GT
6. W
   WAKE
7. W
   UVA
8. W
   PITT
9. W
   DUKE
10. W
    MIA
11. W
    VT
12. W
    NCSU
13. L
    CLEM
14. L
    BAY

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

Players, 2015

1. Marquise WilliamsQB408 plays · +0.256 pts/play · 29th of 205 QBs
   1.95WAR1.37 to 2.60
2. Elijah Hood?154 plays · +0.156 pts/play
   0.45WAR0.31 to 0.60
3. Ryan SwitzerWR63 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 93rd of 411 WRs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.29
4. T.J. Logan?62 plays · +0.123 pts/play
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
5. Quinshad DavisWR57 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 140th of 411 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.23
6. Nick WeilerPK16 plays · +0.405 pts/play · 51st of 115 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
7. Mack HollinsWR34 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 187th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Bug HowardWR40 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 239th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68368326th of 128Roster talent: 683, 26th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21421428th of 128Recruiting: 214, 28th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%14th of 127Returning production: 89%, 14th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.0+20.09th of 128SP+ rating: +20.0, 9th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 PITTQ3 1:00 4th & 3 at PITT 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at VTQ2 0:02 4th & 1 at midfield, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at SCQ4 3:29 4th & 8 at SC 8, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
4. at VTQ3 8:16 4th & 3 at VT 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at VTQ2 1:43 4th & 1 at UNC 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. at VTQ2 6:23 4th & 1 at UNC 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. at CLEMQ3 5:36 4th & 10 at UNC 36, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
8. at PITTQ3 10:14 4th & 2 at PITT 22, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

20th 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. L

   SC
2. W

   NCAT
3. W

   ILL
4. W

   DEL
5. W

   GT
6. W

   WAKE
7. W

   UVA
8. W

   PITT
9. W

   DUKE
10. W

    MIA
11. W

    VT
12. W

    NCSU
13. L

    CLEM
14. L

    BAY

What moved it, 2015

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+1.86
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.63

Game by game

• SCL 13-17 at SC47% → 4%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −4
• NCATW 53-14 vs NCAT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• ILLW 48-14 vs ILL71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• DELW 41-14 vs DEL99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• GTW 38-31 at GT31% → 91%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +48, Clock +4
• WAKEW 50-14 vs WAKE86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +16
• UVAW 26-13 vs UVA84% → 98%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• PITTW 26-19 at PITT60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• DUKEW 66-31 vs DUKE77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26
• MIAW 59-21 vs MIA81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• VTW 30-27 at VT69% → 88%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +15
• NCSUW 45-34 at NCSU66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• CLEML 37-45 at CLEM30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• BAYL 38-49 at BAY44% → 2%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2

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.