Try the model

North Carolina

Tar Heels · ACC · FBS
6-72021 · 4-6 in conference
SP+
+6.4 (#59)
FPI
+5.8 (#43)
SRS
+4.7 (#50)
Resume
#69

Next game

DUKE
at Duke
Sat, Oct 17 · 3:30 PM EDT
Projected score
UNC22
DUKE28
Win chance
34%
UNC 34%DUKE 66%
Market: DUKE favored by 3.0 · Points model v7, built without betting lines. A model's view, not betting advice.Full projection →

Advanced stats

CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →

Profile vs. FBS, 2021
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.23, 76th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 46.4%, 78th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.35, 81st percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.32, 98th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.18, 35th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 50.1%, 65th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 37.9%, 92nd percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.41, 88th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 17.8%, 38th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 17.1%, 36th percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.20, 25th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 45.8%, 24th percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.29, 43rd percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.16, 29th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.29, 23rd percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 53.0%, 8th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 29.1%, 62nd percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.29, 17th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 13.1%, 16th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 15.2%, 26th percentile among FBS

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.
  • 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.
  • Explosiveness
    Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  • Rushing EPA
    EPA per designed run.
  • Passing EPA
    EPA per pass play.
  • Standard downs
    Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  • Passing downs
    Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  • Line yards
    Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  • Stuff rate
    Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  • Havoc
    Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.

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.

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2021
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense+1.189th of 130
Defense+0.82allowed115th of 130
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense+1.0310th of 130
Defense+0.68allowed107th of 130
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense+0.814.6 pts/trip12th of 130
Defense+0.504.3 pts/trip allowed121st of 130
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense0.97101st of 130
Defense0.96opponents45th of 130

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
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

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

Players

YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →

Players, 2021
The quarterback
Sam Howell: 2.49 WAR (90% interval 1.59 to 3.35)
12th of 219 FBS QBs in WAR · 34th of 168 in value per play

Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.

  1. Sam HowellQB452 plays · +0.294 pts/play · 12th of 219 QBs2.49WAR1.59 to 3.35
  2. Ty ChandlerRB169 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 37th of 387 RBs0.65WAR0.47 to 0.81
  3. Josh DownsWR103 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 23rd of 474 WRs0.29WAR0.16 to 0.41
  4. Antoine GreenWR45 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 151st of 474 WRs0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
  5. DJ JonesRB59 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 258th of 387 RBs0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
  6. Ben KiernanP41 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 39th of 101 punters0.12WAR0.05 to 0.20
  7. Grayson AtkinsPK20 plays · +0.314 pts/play · 22nd of 128 kickers0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
  8. Emery SimmonsWR17 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 406th of 474 WRs0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05
Every player (11)
  1. Khafre BrownWR4 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 438th of 474 WRs0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
  2. Garrett WalstonTE21 plays · +0.011 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.03
  3. Kamari MoralesTE22 plays · −0.003 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.03
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
2.49WAR
16th of 130
Running backs
0.79WAR
78th of 130
Receivers
0.48WAR
44th of 130
Tight ends
0.00WAR
38th of 130
Kicker
0.12WAR
23rd of 130
Punter
0.12WAR
39th of 130
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
+1.41/game
11th of 130
Front seven
−2.82/game
121st of 130
Secondary
+0.27/game
57th of 130

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

Transfer portal, 2021

1 players transferred in and 21 out. WAR is each one's 2020 season, before the move. Every team's portal

Brought in
0.32WAR
20th most of 130
FBS median 0.02
Lost
0.00WAR
least of 130
FBS median 0.06
Net
+0.32WAR
11th of 130
FBS median 0.00

In 2021, the arrivals have added 0.65 WAR at North Carolina and the departures 0.08 wherever they went.

Arrivals (1)20202021
  1. Ty ChandlerRB · 4★from Tennessee0.320.65
Departures (21)20202021
  1. Rontavius GrovesWR · 3★to Texas State0.00-
  2. Noah RugglesK · 2★to Ohio State-0.08
The other 19
  1. Ray RoseWR · 4★to East Carolina--
  2. Tre ShawCB · 4★to Western Kentucky--
  3. Antwuan BranchRB · 3★to undecided--
  4. Billy RossOT · 3★to Marshall--
  5. Bryce WattsCB · 3★to Massachusetts--
  6. Bryson RichardsonS · 3★to Massachusetts--
  7. D.J. FordS · 3★to East Carolina--
  8. Jace RuderQB · 3★to North Texas--
  9. Khadry JacksonLB · 3★to Georgia Southern--
  10. Lancine TurayDL · 3★to Temple--
  11. Matthew FlintLB · 3★to Western Kentucky--
  12. Myles WolfolkS · 3★to Bowie State--
  13. Patrice ReneCB · 3★to Rutgers--
  14. Triston MillerOT · 3★to Arizona State--
  15. Welton SpottsvilleS · 3★to Kennesaw State--
  16. Xach GillDL · 3★to Temple--
  17. Austyn ChestnutATHto App State--
  18. Drew HomschekSto undecided--
  19. Vincent AmendolaQBto Towson--

Only quarterbacks, skill players and specialists have a WAR of their own, so they make up these totals; linemen and defenders count in the moves but add none. 2020 is the player's season at his old school, 2021 his season after the move. A dash means no FBS snaps that season. Rosters tie CFBD's portal entries to players, which works for about 19 in 20 skill-position moves.

Talent and roster

How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →

What it had and what it did, 2021
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 798, 17th of 130 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 238, 20th of 130 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 51%, 103rd of 128 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +6.4, 59th 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
−6.8points per game

North Carolina's SP+ of +6.4 is 6.8 points below the +13.2 its roster talent predicts, 98th of 130 in FBS.

Offense+3.8
Defense−10.5

The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.

−200+2005001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 1004, SP+ +26.0 (−3.4 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 1002, SP+ +32.0 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 985, SP+ +29.3 (+1.5 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 935, SP+ +18.7 (−4.9 vs. talent)LSU: talent 904, SP+ +4.1 (−17.0 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 895, SP+ +16.8 (−3.6 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 888, SP+ +21.1 (+1.3 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 886, SP+ +10.2 (−9.4 vs. talent)Florida: talent 886, SP+ +11.0 (−8.6 vs. talent)USC: talent 875, SP+ −0.6 (−19.4 vs. talent)Texas: talent 874, SP+ +8.5 (−10.3 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 853, SP+ +17.4 (+0.2 vs. talent)Miami: talent 841, SP+ +10.8 (−5.5 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 840, SP+ +11.0 (−5.2 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 833, SP+ +23.4 (+7.7 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 821, SP+ +14.3 (−0.5 vs. talent)Washington: talent 790, SP+ −0.7 (−13.3 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 781, SP+ +17.5 (+5.5 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 770, SP+ +7.6 (−3.7 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 751, SP+ +20.1 (+10.0 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 748, SP+ +3.9 (−6.0 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 746, SP+ +9.4 (−0.3 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 745, SP+ −10.2 (−19.9 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 744, SP+ +10.3 (+0.7 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 734, SP+ +11.8 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 732, SP+ +14.8 (+6.0 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 723, SP+ +13.8 (+5.5 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 716, SP+ +10.5 (+2.6 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 709, SP+ +13.4 (+6.0 vs. talent)Utah: talent 708, SP+ +15.2 (+7.9 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 707, SP+ −6.7 (−14.0 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 706, SP+ +6.2 (−1.0 vs. talent)NC State: talent 700, SP+ +16.1 (+9.2 vs. talent)TCU: talent 699, SP+ −0.6 (−7.4 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 677, SP+ +11.2 (+5.7 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 669, SP+ +17.6 (+12.6 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 664, SP+ −7.8 (−12.6 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 664, SP+ +2.4 (−2.3 vs. talent)California: talent 662, SP+ +3.4 (−1.3 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 661, SP+ +15.6 (+11.0 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 657, SP+ +11.4 (+7.0 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 653, SP+ +14.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 649, SP+ −11.1 (−15.0 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 648, SP+ +3.1 (−0.7 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 644, SP+ +10.3 (+6.6 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 641, SP+ −10.0 (−13.5 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 641, SP+ +8.9 (+5.4 vs. talent)UCF: talent 639, SP+ +4.8 (+1.4 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 636, SP+ +0.9 (−2.3 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 630, SP+ +4.3 (+1.4 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 627, SP+ +21.2 (+18.5 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 620, SP+ +7.2 (+4.9 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 614, SP+ +17.2 (+15.2 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 614, SP+ +14.3 (+12.3 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 611, SP+ +1.8 (−0.1 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 610, SP+ −19.4 (−21.2 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 608, SP+ +7.8 (+6.1 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 607, SP+ +9.8 (+8.1 vs. talent)Duke: talent 606, SP+ −13.5 (−15.1 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 601, SP+ +6.7 (+5.3 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 589, SP+ +10.1 (+9.3 vs. talent)SMU: talent 576, SP+ +8.9 (+8.8 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 573, SP+ −3.0 (−3.0 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 572, SP+ +1.0 (+1.1 vs. talent)Houston: talent 571, SP+ +10.9 (+11.0 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 570, SP+ +14.2 (+14.4 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 568, SP+ −12.6 (−12.3 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 567, SP+ +0.3 (+0.6 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 558, SP+ +9.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 553, SP+ −5.2 (−4.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 548, SP+ −19.7 (−18.5 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 541, SP+ −12.1 (−10.5 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 525, SP+ +13.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 521, SP+ −21.6 (−19.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 520, SP+ −11.6 (−9.1 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 516, SP+ +0.5 (+3.2 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 509, SP+ +6.5 (+9.5 vs. talent)Temple: talent 501, SP+ −19.1 (−15.8 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 496, SP+ −6.5 (−3.0 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 494, SP+ −4.0 (−0.4 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 484, SP+ +10.8 (+14.8 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 476, SP+ −17.9 (−13.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 470, SP+ +5.8 (+10.3 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 466, SP+ −14.2 (−9.5 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 465, SP+ +6.9 (+11.6 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 463, SP+ −3.9 (+0.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 463, SP+ −13.7 (−8.9 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 457, SP+ +8.0 (+13.1 vs. talent)App State: talent 450, SP+ +10.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Troy: talent 449, SP+ −6.5 (−1.1 vs. talent)UAB: talent 444, SP+ +9.1 (+14.6 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 443, SP+ −2.4 (+3.2 vs. talent)BYU: talent 443, SP+ +8.9 (+14.5 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 442, SP+ +8.3 (+13.9 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 436, SP+ +8.7 (+14.5 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 428, SP+ −16.0 (−9.9 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 422, SP+ +3.6 (+9.9 vs. talent)Rice: talent 420, SP+ −22.9 (−16.5 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 416, SP+ +13.2 (+19.7 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 415, SP+ −7.2 (−0.6 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 414, SP+ +1.8 (+8.4 vs. talent)San José State: talent 411, SP+ −1.9 (+4.8 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 409, SP+ −7.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 397, SP+ −2.3 (+4.9 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 396, SP+ +0.6 (+7.8 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 394, SP+ +0.1 (+7.4 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 392, SP+ −13.8 (−6.5 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 384, SP+ −15.3 (−7.7 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 381, SP+ −12.4 (−4.7 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 378, SP+ +1.5 (+9.3 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 361, SP+ −18.6 (−10.3 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 358, SP+ −6.4 (+2.0 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 354, SP+ −7.1 (+1.4 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 341, SP+ −7.8 (+1.0 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 338, SP+ −11.2 (−2.3 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 332, SP+ −11.6 (−2.5 vs. talent)UConn: talent 332, SP+ −25.6 (−16.5 vs. talent)Akron: talent 331, SP+ −23.1 (−14.0 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 327, SP+ +0.6 (+9.8 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 319, SP+ −4.2 (+5.2 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 312, SP+ −20.3 (−10.7 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 269, SP+ −1.0 (+9.6 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 267, SP+ −9.5 (+1.1 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 227, SP+ −29.3 (−18.0 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 155, SP+ +8.4 (+20.7 vs. talent)Navy: talent 128, SP+ −8.5 (+4.1 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 117, SP+ −24.2 (−11.6 vs. talent)Army: talent 112, SP+ +4.7 (+17.4 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 30, SP+ +7.4 (+20.3 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 798, SP+ +6.4, expected +13.2North Carolina
One dot per FBS team, 2021. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is North Carolina's conversion.
Conversion by season

Bars above the line: SP+ above what the roster's talent predicted. The lighter bar is the season in progress.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2021
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

68 of 8778%48th of 130
FBS median 77%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

1.1 ptsper game80th of 130
0.15 expected wins over 13 games, FBS median 1.0 pts
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

8 of 1457%
FBS teams went 69%

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.15 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 WAKEQ4 2:12 4th & 3 at WAKE 7, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
  2. at NCSUQ4 7:44 4th & 4 at NCSU 4, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
  3. at NDQ3 10:20 4th & 1 at UNC 27, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
  4. at PITTQ2 9:36 4th & 1 at UNC 33, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
  5. at NCSUQ4 2:12 4th & 3 at NCSU 33, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
  6. at GTQ3 8:29 4th & 1 at UNC 34, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
  7. vs DUKEQ3 12:19 4th & 2 at DUKE 48, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
  8. at NCSUQ1 6:02 4th & 1 at UNC 20, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
Every call this season (87)
Wk 1 · at VT · L 10-176 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 8:184th & 13 at UNC 35, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 10:264th & 20 at VT 39, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 1:304th & 2 at UNC 33, down 14 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q3 12:584th & 2 at UNC 33, down 14 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 5:164th & 1 at UNC 48, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 12:344th & 3 at UNC 43, down 10 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 5:534th & 8 at VT 14, down 10 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  8. Q4 1:514th & 11 at UNC 24, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 2 · vs GAST · W 59-174 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 1:254th & 1 at UNC 42, up 11 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q2 4:534th & 9 at UNC 30, up 11 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 0:564th & 12 at GAST 12, up 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 12:214th & 10 at GAST 17, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q4 0:234th & 1 at UNC 43, up 42 · PuntedClose call
Wk 3 · vs UVA · W 59-392 of 2 agreed
  1. Q2 10:474th & 12 at UVA 19, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 1:014th & 13 at UVA 37, up 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 4 · at GT · L 22-456 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 13:094th & 10 at UNC 45, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 4:234th & 25 at UNC 33, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 9:564th & 17 at GT 36, up 1 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 3:454th & 1 at GT 49, up 1 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q2 0:234th & 16 at UNC 26, down 6 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 11:254th & 1 at UNC 41, down 6 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q3 8:294th & 1 at UNC 34, down 13 · Punted−1.3 pts
  8. Q4 0:154th & 15 at UNC 20, down 23 · Went for itClose call
Wk 5 · vs DUKE · W 38-76 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 12:124th & 15 at UNC 48, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 5:274th & 3 at UNC 40, tied · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 9:554th & 6 at DUKE 49, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 1:244th & 6 at DUKE 11, up 21 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q2 0:284th & 2 at UNC 25, up 24 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 12:194th & 2 at DUKE 48, up 17 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q3 9:444th & 22 at UNC 43, up 17 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 2:054th & 19 at UNC 46, up 17 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 6 · vs FSU · L 25-353 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 10:274th & 10 at FSU 34, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 9:434th & 9 at UNC 26, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 5:554th & 7 at UNC 41, down 11 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q4 12:464th & 5 at FSU 5, down 18 · Went for itClose call
  5. Q4 5:344th & 9 at FSU 48, down 18 · Went for itClose call
Wk 7 · vs MIA · W 45-426 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 3:074th & 9 at UNC 26, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 1:054th & 16 at MIA 35, up 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 0:004th & 13 at MIA 30, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q3 3:424th & 15 at UNC 31, up 11 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 0:194th & 14 at UNC 21, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 6:404th & 6 at UNC 47, up 11 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 2:464th & 6 at UNC 31, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 9 · at ND · L 34-442 of 3 agreed
  1. Q1 6:444th & 9 at UNC 48, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q3 10:204th & 1 at UNC 27, down 4 · Punted−1.6 pts
  3. Q4 14:444th & 9 at ND 44, down 4 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 10 · vs WAKE · W 58-555 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 4:564th & 1 at UNC 34, down 3 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 11:014th & 7 at WAKE 40, down 3 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 6:074th & 18 at UNC 15, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 2:514th & 6 at UNC 21, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 12:244th & 6 at WAKE 6, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 8:054th & 2 at UNC 33, down 11 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 2:124th & 3 at WAKE 7, tied · Kicked a field goal−4.9 pts
Wk 11 · at PITT · L 23-309 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 9:354th & 15 at UNC 1, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 5:414th & 6 at UNC 29, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 2:454th & 8 at UNC 32, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 13:384th & 15 at UNC 31, down 17 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 9:364th & 1 at UNC 33, down 17 · Punted−1.5 pts
  6. Q2 2:244th & 11 at UNC 25, down 16 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q3 9:264th & 1 at PITT 23, down 16 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 14:124th & 4 at PITT 39, down 10 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q4 5:344th & 1 at PITT 1, down 10 · Went for itAgreed
  10. Q4 0:574th & 3 at PITT 3, down 3 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 12 · vs WOF · W 34-146 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 2:434th & 8 at WOF 9, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 13:164th & 9 at UNC 33, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 8:004th & 1 at WOF 20, up 20 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q4 7:244th & 1 at UNC 34, up 20 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q4 3:394th & 1 at WOF 1, up 20 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 3:284th & 1 at WOF 1, up 20 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 13 · at NCSU · L 30-346 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 13:374th & 15 at UNC 20, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 12:124th & 7 at NCSU 49, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q1 6:024th & 1 at UNC 20, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q2 14:064th & 4 at NCSU 5, down 14 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  5. Q2 8:004th & 4 at UNC 15, down 11 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q2 6:184th & 7 at UNC 33, down 11 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q2 3:004th & 1 at NCSU 40, down 11 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 11:584th & 12 at UNC 48, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 7:444th & 4 at NCSU 4, up 3 · Kicked a field goal−1.8 pts
  10. Q4 2:124th & 3 at NCSU 33, up 6 · Kicked a field goal−1.4 pts
Duke's Mayo Bowl · at SC · L 21-387 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 12:014th & 14 at UNC 46, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 9:094th & 1 at UNC 34, down 7 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q1 5:414th & 4 at UNC 25, down 15 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 13:544th & 1 at UNC 34, down 18 · Went for itAgreed
  5. Q2 5:444th & 20 at SC 23, down 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q2 0:444th & 6 at SC 19, down 15 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q4 14:044th & 18 at UNC 18, down 11 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 5:524th & 16 at UNC 31, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

49 of 5688%
FBS median 91%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0.9 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.6 pts
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Went for two 4 times, converted 3
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. vs FSUQ4 2:47 Touchdown, down 12 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.4 pts
  2. at SCQ3 7:24 Touchdown, down 13 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.2 pts
  3. at PITTQ3 5:39 Touchdown, down 10 before the tryWent for two; the numbers favored kicking (close call)−0.1 pts

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2021
6-7vs. 8.9 expected−2.9 wins

125th 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
  2. W
  3. W
  4. L
  5. W
  6. L
  7. W
  8. L
  9. W
  10. L
  11. W
  12. L
  13. L
What moved it, 2021
+2.4 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
−2.6 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

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−1.71
  • Possession & field position−0.03
  • Clock−0.14
  • Timeouts+0.08
  • Other+0.01
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.84
Game by game

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.

Season arc, 2021

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is North Carolina's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2021

The largest single-play change in North Carolina's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

North Carolina's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

North Carolina's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

North Carolina's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$100.27+10.7% over the past year
Series & rivalries

North Carolina's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com