South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2477th
  Defense+0.277th
• 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.
  Offense43.5%51st
  Defense51.2%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3585th
  Defense+1.3812th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1973rd
  Defense+0.2112th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4079th
  Defense+0.3615th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.7%31st
  Defense54.4%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.3%72nd
  Defense42.4%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1759th
  Defense3.0436th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.0%85th
  Defense18.5%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.6%76th
  Defense16.8%62nd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 South Alabama 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
   SELA
2. L
   TULN
3. W
   OHIO
4. L
   UK
5. W
   ULM
6. W
   ARST

Bars above the line: better than expected for South Alabama.

Players, 2026

1. Jared HollinsQB93 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 72nd of 192 QBs
   0.27WAR0.14 to 0.39
2. PJ MartinRB70 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 23rd of 320 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
3. Keenan PhillipsRB61 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 51st of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
4. Bishop DavenportQB41 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 135th of 192 QBs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
5. Brendan JenkinsWR25 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 78th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
6. Jeremiah Jones-ThomasWR24 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 121st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
7. Anthony EagerWR20 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.06
8. Rod GibbsTE7 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 83rd of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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 South Alabama'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  573573107th of 138Roster talent: 573, 107th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615692nd of 138Recruiting: 156, 92nd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%14th of 136Returning production: 79%, 14th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.1−11.1111th of 138SP+ rating so far: −11.1, 111th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 South Alabama's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.06 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 TULNQ2 5:31 4th & 1 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs ULMQ2 3:02 4th & 1 at USA 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs OHIOQ4 4:17 4th & 5 at OHIO 40, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs SELAQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at SELA 12, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs OHIOQ3 12:39 4th & 2 at USA 14, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs OHIOQ4 1:10 4th & 3 at OHIO 3, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at ARSTQ4 10:05 4th & 2 at USA 33, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at UKQ4 11:54 4th & 3 at USA 32, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

27th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up South Alabama's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   SELA
2. L

   TULN
3. W

   OHIO
4. L

   UK
5. W

   ULM
6. W

   ARST

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at South Alabama'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+0.68
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.13

Game by game

• SELAW 39-14 vs SELA82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts −1
• TULNL 24-28 at TULN32% → 5%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −3
• OHIOW 41-36 vs OHIO72% → 83%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position −2
• UKL 21-45 at UK13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• ULMW 52-35 vs ULM84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• ARSTW 56-49 at ARST47% → 99%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +53, Clock +4

Points of win probability, from South Alabama's side.

Closest call

USA 59-10 EMU (2023) - South Alabama dropped to a 0.0% win probability before pulling it out.