North Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.2386th
  Defense+0.1339th
• 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.
  Offense46.3%77th
  Defense45.5%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3494th
  Defense+1.0598th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0332nd
  Defense+0.0942nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4092nd
  Defense+0.1939th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%58th
  Defense49.7%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.6%92nd
  Defense35.4%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8940th
  Defense3.0930th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.9%14th
  Defense14.7%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.6%39th
  Defense14.3%20th

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, 2016

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
   UGA
2. W
   ILL
3. W
   JMU
4. W
   PITT
5. W
   FSU
6. L
   VT
7. W
   MIA
8. W
   UVA
9. W
   GT
10. L
    DUKE
11. W
    CIT
12. L
    NCSU
13. L
    STAN

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

Players, 2016

1. Mitchell TrubiskyQB497 plays · +0.307 pts/play · 4th of 218 QBs
   2.86WAR1.92 to 3.71
2. Elijah Hood?142 plays · +0.198 pts/play
   0.53WAR0.39 to 0.69
3. T.J. Logan?138 plays · +0.158 pts/play
   0.41WAR0.27 to 0.55
4. Ryan SwitzerWR117 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 33rd of 417 WRs
   0.28WAR0.10 to 0.46
5. Bug HowardWR83 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 58th of 417 WRs
   0.22WAR0.10 to 0.35
6. Austin ProehlWR65 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 121st of 417 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.26
7. Nick WeilerPK16 plays · +0.470 pts/play · 30th of 116 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
8. Mack HollinsWR25 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 231st of 417 WRs
   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 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67067029th of 128Roster talent: 670, 29th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21121127th of 128Recruiting: 211, 27th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%85th of 128Returning production: 57%, 85th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.9+15.917th of 128SP+ rating: +15.9, 17th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.17 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 NCSUQ4 6:53 4th & 20 at UNC 49, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting3.5 pts
2. vs VTQ3 12:01 4th & 13 at UNC 22, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting2.9 pts
3. at ILLQ2 2:37 4th & 1 at UNC 47, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
4. vs NCSUQ2 10:27 4th & 1 at UNC 35, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
5. vs PITTQ4 13:45 4th & 2 at UNC 30, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
6. at MIAQ3 11:21 4th & 3 at MIA 22, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. at DUKEQ3 0:35 4th & 4 at DUKE 19, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
8. at DUKEQ4 8:39 4th & 6 at DUKE 45, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

63rd 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

   UGA
2. W

   ILL
3. W

   JMU
4. W

   PITT
5. W

   FSU
6. L

   VT
7. W

   MIA
8. W

   UVA
9. W

   GT
10. L

    DUKE
11. W

    CIT
12. L

    NCSU
13. L

    STAN

What moved it, 2016

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+0.44
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.15

Game by game

• UGAL 24-33 vs UGA34% → 6%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• ILLW 48-23 at ILL64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +1
• JMUW 56-28 vs JMU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• PITTW 37-36 vs PITT67% → 92%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −1
• FSUW 37-35 at FSU17% → 95%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• VTL 3-34 vs VT61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• MIAW 20-13 at MIA26% → 96%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +56, Clock +4
• UVAW 35-14 at UVA71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• GTW 48-20 vs GT72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29
• DUKEL 27-28 at DUKE74% → 20%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −3
• CITW 41-7 vs CIT95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• NCSUL 21-28 vs NCSU75% → 9%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −51, Clock −1
• STANL 23-25 vs STAN43% → 5%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3

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.