North Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2183rd
  Defense+0.0770th
• 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.
  Offense45.6%69th
  Defense41.6%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2776th
  Defense+1.2055th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1059th
  Defense−0.0278th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3491st
  Defense+0.1650th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%66th
  Defense47.0%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.1%82nd
  Defense31.0%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9859th
  Defense2.8557th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%27th
  Defense22.1%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.5%50th
  Defense21.1%63rd

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, 2019

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
   SC
2. W
   MIA
3. L
   WAKE
4. L
   APP
5. L
   CLEM
6. W
   GT
7. L
   VT
8. W
   DUKE
9. L
   UVA
10. L
    PITT
11. W
    MER
12. W
    NCSU
13. W
    TEM

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

Players, 2019

1. Sam HowellQB446 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 18th of 228 QBs
   1.88WAR1.17 to 2.61
2. Javonte WilliamsRB153 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 38th of 349 RBs
   0.58WAR0.45 to 0.70
3. Michael CarterRB161 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 83rd of 349 RBs
   0.43WAR0.29 to 0.59
4. Dazz NewsomeWR83 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 25th of 439 WRs
   0.28WAR0.15 to 0.39
5. Noah RugglesPK24 plays · +0.423 pts/play · 14th of 114 kickers
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
6. Beau CorralesWR60 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 117th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
7. Dyami BrownWR71 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 126th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.24
8. Antonio WilliamsRB39 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 242nd of 349 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.16

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69869828th of 130Roster talent: 698, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21621628th of 130Recruiting: 216, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%89th of 130Returning production: 52%, 89th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.3+10.330th of 130SP+ rating: +10.3, 30th 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, 2019

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.18 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 MIAQ3 0:15 4th & 3 at MIA 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs MIAQ4 8:46 4th & 3 at MIA 31, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs DUKEQ4 7:00 4th & 3 at DUKE 23, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. at VTQ3 1:25 4th & 2 at VT 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. vs DUKEQ3 3:59 4th & 2 at DUKE 17, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. vs SCQ3 7:55 4th & 3 at SC 5, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at PITTQ2 7:36 4th & 2 at PITT 8, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at NCSUQ2 9:09 4th & 3 at NCSU 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

59th 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. W

   SC
2. W

   MIA
3. L

   WAKE
4. L

   APP
5. L

   CLEM
6. W

   GT
7. L

   VT
8. W

   DUKE
9. L

   UVA
10. L

    PITT
11. W

    MER
12. W

    NCSU
13. W

    TEM

What moved it, 2019

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+0.26
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock−0.36
• Timeouts+0.35
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• SCW 24-20 vs SC19% → 87%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• MIAW 28-25 vs MIA40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts −1
• WAKEL 18-24 at WAKE41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• APPL 31-34 vs APP58% → 18%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• CLEML 20-21 vs CLEM4% → 6%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −13, Clock −1
• GTW 38-22 at GT77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• VTL 41-43 at VT60% → 14%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts +18
• DUKEW 20-17 vs DUKE62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• UVAL 31-38 vs UVA53% → 5%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• PITTL 27-34 at PITT41% → 8%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +15
• MERW 56-7 vs MER74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• NCSUW 41-10 at NCSU79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27
• TEMW 55-13 at TEM69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +36

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.