North Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0523rd
  Defense+0.1533rd
• 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.
  Offense42.7%40th
  Defense43.5%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2041st
  Defense+1.2150th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0643rd
  Defense+0.1229th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.1843rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%29th
  Defense48.5%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%74th
  Defense33.7%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7526th
  Defense3.1515th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.1%12th
  Defense16.6%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%48th
  Defense17.1%66th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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
   CAL
2. L
   ECU
3. W
   PITT
4. L
   MIA
5. L
   VT
6. L
   SYR
7. L
   UVA
8. L
   GT
9. L
   DUKE
10. W
    WCU
11. L
    NCSU

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

Players, 2018

1. Nathan ElliottQB288 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 85th of 225 QBs
   0.97WAR0.53 to 1.44
2. Michael CarterRB101 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 136th of 351 RBs
   0.31WAR0.22 to 0.41
3. Cade FortinQB70 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 169th of 225 QBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.38
4. Antonio WilliamsRB97 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 167th of 351 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.32
5. Anthony Ratliff-WilliamsWR74 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 62nd of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.27
6. Jordon Brown?69 plays · +0.133 pts/play
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
7. Freeman JonesPK23 plays · +0.373 pts/play · 11th of 112 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
8. Dazz NewsomeWR62 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 135th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68868828th of 130Roster talent: 688, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521529th of 130Recruiting: 215, 29th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%22nd of 129Returning production: 82%, 22nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.5−2.588th of 130SP+ rating: −2.5, 88th 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.07 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 SYRQ4 0:54 4th & 10 at SYR 39, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
2. at SYRQ4 5:07 4th & 3 at SYR 28, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at DUKEQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at UNC 30, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs GTQ2 10:20 4th & 3 at UNC 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at ECUQ3 7:49 4th & 20 at ECU 37, down 9Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at UVAQ2 2:31 4th & 5 at UNC 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at CALQ4 12:35 4th & 5 at CAL 20, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at CALQ3 13:40 4th & 12 at CAL 36, down 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

129th of 130 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

   CAL
2. L

   ECU
3. W

   PITT
4. L

   MIA
5. L

   VT
6. L

   SYR
7. L

   UVA
8. L

   GT
9. L

   DUKE
10. W

    WCU
11. L

    NCSU

What moved it, 2018

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−2.77
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.45

Game by game

• CALL 17-24 at CAL33% → 2%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +1
• ECUL 19-41 at ECU89% → 0%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −59, Timeouts −1
• PITTW 38-35 vs PITT48% → 90%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• MIAL 10-47 at MIA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −13
• VTL 19-22 vs VT34% → 17%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −34, Clock −3
• SYRL 37-40 at SYR29% → 15%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +19
• UVAL 21-31 at UVA35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −1
• GTL 28-38 vs GT42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• DUKEL 35-42 at DUKE33% → 10%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• WCUW 49-26 vs WCU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• NCSUL 28-34 vs NCSU34% → 10%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −15

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.