North Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0320th
  Defense+0.1527th
• 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.
  Offense38.2%16th
  Defense40.9%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.148th
  Defense+1.2553rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.059th
  Defense+0.1327th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1650th
  Defense+0.1653rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.7%11th
  Defense46.5%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.
  Offense28.1%33rd
  Defense28.6%56th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7219th
  Defense2.7273rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%51st
  Defense17.1%27th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%30th
  Defense14.8%33rd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   TCU
2. W
   CLT
3. W
   RICH
4. L
   UCF
5. L
   CLEM
6. L
   CAL
7. L
   UVA
8. W
   SYR
9. W
   STAN
10. L
    WAKE
11. L
    DUKE
12. L
    NCSU

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

Players, 2025

1. Gio LopezQB303 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 74th of 231 QBs
   1.16WAR0.51 to 1.71
2. Jordan ShippWR68 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 111th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.29
3. Demon JuneRB76 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 172nd of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
4. Rece VerhoffPK19 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 31st of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
5. Benjamin HallRB71 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 232nd of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Kobe PaysourWR50 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.19
7. Davion GauseRB50 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 234th of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. Jaylen McGillRB8 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 306th of 365 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75375331st of 134Roster talent: 753, 31st of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22922922nd of 134Recruiting: 229, 22nd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  16%16%107th of 132Returning production: 16%, 107th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.6−6.689th of 134SP+ rating: −6.6, 89th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.20 of the 0.27 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 STANQ4 0:46 4th & 6 at STAN 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−8.7 pts
2. vs UVAQ4 3:11 4th & 4 at UVA 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
3. vs UVAQ3 6:34 4th & 2 at UNC 9, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at SYRQ2 6:12 4th & 1 at UNC 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs STANQ4 14:16 4th & 4 at STAN 30, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs RICHQ3 6:20 4th & 1 at UNC 10, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs STANQ2 4:27 4th & 1 at UNC 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at SYRQ2 9:26 4th & 2 at UNC 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

108th of 136 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

   TCU
2. W

   CLT
3. W

   RICH
4. L

   UCF
5. L

   CLEM
6. L

   CAL
7. L

   UVA
8. W

   SYR
9. W

   STAN
10. L

    WAKE
11. L

    DUKE
12. L

    NCSU

What moved it, 2025

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−2.12
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.40

Game by game

• TCUL 14-48 vs TCU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• CLTW 20-3 at CLT89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• RICHW 41-6 vs RICH95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• UCFL 9-34 at UCF31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Clock +1
• CLEML 10-38 vs CLEM13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −17
• CALL 18-21 at CAL31% → 11%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position −2
• UVAL 16-17 vs UVA22% → 22%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −15
• SYRW 27-10 at SYR46% → 99%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +53, Clock +2
• STANW 20-15 vs STAN71% → 8%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• WAKEL 12-28 at WAKE39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• DUKEL 25-32 vs DUKE31% → 3%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• NCSUL 19-42 at NCSU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29

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.