North Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.3898th
  Defense+0.1827th
• 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.
  Offense50.6%94th
  Defense42.1%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4798th
  Defense+1.3325th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3198th
  Defense+0.1817th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4595th
  Defense+0.1850th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.9%89th
  Defense46.4%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.9%89th
  Defense31.6%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2789th
  Defense3.1426th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%62nd
  Defense16.0%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%69th
  Defense15.4%35th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   SYR
2. W
   BC
3. W
   VT
4. L
   FSU
5. W
   NCSU
6. L
   UVA
7. W
   DUKE
8. W
   WAKE
9. L
   ND
10. W
    WCU
11. W
    MIA
12. L
    TA&M

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

Players, 2020

1. Sam HowellQB385 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 8th of 212 QBs
   1.32WAR0.64 to 1.94
2. Javonte WilliamsRB151 plays · +0.231 pts/play · 8th of 338 RBs
   0.65WAR0.52 to 0.78
3. Michael CarterRB151 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 32nd of 338 RBs
   0.46WAR0.34 to 0.58
4. Dyami BrownWR76 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 11th of 409 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.34
5. Dazz NewsomeWR54 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 31st of 409 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
6. Grayson AtkinsPK16 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 27th of 97 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Ben KiernanP27 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 25th of 77 punters
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Beau CorralesWR20 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 304th of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74074023rd of 127Roster talent: 740, 23rd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22622623rd of 127Recruiting: 226, 23rd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  94%94%6th of 127Returning production: 94%, 6th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.0+18.011th of 127SP+ rating: +18.0, 11th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.10 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 FSUQ4 0:35 4th & 9 at FSU 41, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.9 pts
2. vs TA&MQ3 4:33 4th & 1 at UNC 33, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs VTQ4 0:01 4th & 7 at VT 10, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at MIAQ2 10:48 4th & 4 at MIA 4, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs NDQ4 12:50 4th & 3 at UNC 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs NDQ2 1:10 4th & 2 at ND 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs SYRQ2 2:50 4th & 5 at SYR 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs TA&MQ4 0:31 4th & 27 at UNC 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

100th of 127 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

   SYR
2. W

   BC
3. W

   VT
4. L

   FSU
5. W

   NCSU
6. L

   UVA
7. W

   DUKE
8. W

   WAKE
9. L

   ND
10. W

    WCU
11. W

    MIA
12. L

    TA&M

What moved it, 2020

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+0.16
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.99

Game by game

• SYRW 31-6 vs SYR95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• BCW 26-22 at BC88% → 95%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• VTW 56-45 vs VT69% → 98%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• FSUL 28-31 at FSU85% → 7%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1
• NCSUW 48-21 vs NCSU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• UVAL 41-44 at UVA78% → 10%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −3
• DUKEW 56-24 at DUKE84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• WAKEW 59-53 vs WAKE86% → 96%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• NDL 17-31 vs ND43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• WCUW 49-9 vs WCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• MIAW 62-26 at MIA46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +54, Clock +2
• TA&ML 27-41 vs TA&M26% → 2%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −34, Clock −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.