South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0718th
  Defense+0.1735th
• 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.
  Offense41.5%35th
  Defense42.7%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1220th
  Defense+1.2146th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0529th
  Defense+0.1338th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1122nd
  Defense+0.2530th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%25th
  Defense45.8%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.3%55th
  Defense37.0%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0261st
  Defense3.0823rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%55th
  Defense18.1%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.8%1st
  Defense1.6%25th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   KENT
2. L
   MSST
3. L
   GASO
4. W
   IDHO
5. W
   APP
6. W
   GAST
7. W
   TROY
8. L
   UL
9. L
   ARST
10. W
    TXST
11. L
    SC
12. L
    NAVY
13. L
    BGSU

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

Players, 2014

1. Brandon BridgeQB334 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 91st of 199 QBs
   1.19WAR0.66 to 1.75
2. Kendall HoustonRB114 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 86th of 350 RBs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.35
3. Shavarez SmithWR66 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 46th of 469 WRs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.36
4. Hunter VaughnQB60 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 166th of 199 QBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
5. Xavier JohnsonRB65 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 155th of 350 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
6. Danny WoodsonWR41 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.19
7. Terrance TimmonsRB70 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 191st of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
8. Aleem SunanonPK16 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 51st of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.17

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 ULQ3 0:08 4th & 1 at UL 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.3 pts
2. at KENTQ4 8:00 4th & 1 at USA 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
3. vs NAVYQ2 7:32 4th & 1 at USA 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at KENTQ2 11:56 4th & 1 at USA 49, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs GASOQ3 7:37 4th & 9 at GASO 9, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
6. at SCQ2 0:02 4th & 1 at SC 2, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at KENTQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at KENT 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs NAVYQ2 0:56 4th & 5 at NAVY 43, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

84th of 128 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   KENT
2. L

   MSST
3. L

   GASO
4. W

   IDHO
5. W

   APP
6. W

   GAST
7. W

   TROY
8. L

   UL
9. L

   ARST
10. W

    TXST
11. L

    SC
12. L

    NAVY
13. L

    BGSU

What moved it, 2014

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−0.55
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.02

Game by game

• KENTW 23-13 at KENT52% → 96%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• MSSTL 3-35 vs MSST15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20
• GASOL 6-28 vs GASO55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• APPW 47-21 at APP62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +45, Possession & field position −2
• GASTW 30-27 vs GAST86% → 91%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +1
• TROYW 27-13 vs TROY81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts −1
• ULL 9-19 at UL30% → 6%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position −1
• ARSTL 10-45 at ARST27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30
• TXSTW 24-20 vs TXST59% → 81%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −4
• SCL 12-37 at SC4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• NAVYL 40-42 vs NAVY32% → 9%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −36, Clock −3
• BGSUL 28-33 at BGSU47% → 3%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3

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.