South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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.
  Offense0.0015th
  Defense+0.1333rd
• 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.
  Offense40.2%26th
  Defense43.5%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1529th
  Defense+1.2524th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0230th
  Defense+0.0835th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0017th
  Defense+0.1935th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%20th
  Defense49.3%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%35th
  Defense31.8%63rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7835th
  Defense2.8453rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.4%28th
  Defense20.7%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%34th
  Defense2.4%72nd

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, 2015

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
   GWEB
2. L
   NEB
3. W
   SDSU
4. L
   NCSU
5. W
   TROY
6. L
   ARST
7. L
   TXST
8. W
   IDHO
9. W
   UL
10. L
    GAST
11. L
    GASO
12. L
    APP

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

Players, 2015

1. Cody ClementsQB276 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 104th of 205 QBs
   0.81WAR0.35 to 1.30
2. Xavier JohnsonRB118 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 83rd of 333 RBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.38
3. Tyreis ThomasRB81 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 143rd of 333 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
4. Aleem SunanonPK14 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 72nd of 115 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
5. Danny WoodsonWR29 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 225th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Josh MageeWR28 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 235th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Terrance TimmonsRB43 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 216th of 333 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
8. Marvin ShinnWR23 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 302nd of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  367367102nd of 128Roster talent: 367, 102nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114101st of 128Recruiting: 114, 101st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%116th of 127Returning production: 32%, 116th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.4−10.4104th of 128SP+ rating: −10.4, 104th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.15 of the 0.18 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 TROYQ3 0:46 4th & 1 at TROY 18, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. vs APPQ4 9:48 4th & 2 at APP 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. vs ULQ4 6:16 4th & 7 at UL 43, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at GASTQ3 8:14 4th & 1 at USA 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs ARSTQ2 9:00 4th & 1 at USA 28, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at TROYQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at TROY 38, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs ARSTQ3 8:04 4th & 3 at ARST 19, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at TROYQ1 6:35 4th & 13 at USA 14, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

24th 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.

1. W

   GWEB
2. L

   NEB
3. W

   SDSU
4. L

   NCSU
5. W

   TROY
6. L

   ARST
7. L

   TXST
8. W

   IDHO
9. W

   UL
10. L

    GAST
11. L

    GASO
12. L

    APP

What moved it, 2015

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+0.32
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.69

Game by game

• GWEBW 33-23 vs GWEB74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position +1
• NEBL 9-48 at NEB4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• SDSUW 34-27 at SDSU13% → 84%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +17
• NCSUL 13-63 vs NCSU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• TROYW 24-18 at TROY38% → 94%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ARSTL 31-49 vs ARST29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• TXSTL 18-36 at TXST33% → 2%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• IDHOW 52-45 vs IDHO66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• ULW 32-25 vs UL44% → 97%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +3
• GASTL 10-24 at GAST42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• GASOL 17-55 at GASO8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• APPL 27-34 vs APP12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1

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.