South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0834th
  Defense+0.0860th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%44th
  Defense44.2%41st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1843rd
  Defense+1.1667th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0334th
  Defense+0.0651st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1544th
  Defense+0.1554th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%49th
  Defense47.7%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%39th
  Defense36.1%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9448th
  Defense2.8658th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%48th
  Defense19.2%49th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%19th
  Defense17.3%66th

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, 2016

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
   MSST
2. L
   GASO
3. L
   UL
4. W
   NICH
5. W
   SDSU
6. L
   ARST
7. L
   TROY
8. W
   GAST
9. L
   ULM
10. W
    PRES
11. L
    IDHO
12. W
    NMSU
13. L
    AF

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

Players, 2016

1. Dallas DavisQB277 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 79th of 218 QBs
   1.07WAR0.56 to 1.55
2. Xavier JohnsonRB105 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 117th of 347 RBs
   0.31WAR0.20 to 0.42
3. Dami AyoolaRB69 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 175th of 347 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.26
4. Tyreis ThomasRB69 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 177th of 347 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.26
5. Josh MageeWR46 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 100th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.25
6. Cole GarvinQB39 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 185th of 218 QBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Brandon McKeeP34 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 56th of 82 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.15
8. Kevin KutcheraWR33 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 231st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  389389102nd of 128Roster talent: 389, 102nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12112195th of 128Recruiting: 121, 95th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%92nd of 128Returning production: 54%, 92nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.4−9.4101st of 128SP+ rating: −9.4, 101st 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, 2016

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 0.23 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 TROYQ4 2:13 4th & 4 at USA 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. vs GASTQ4 4:13 4th & 4 at GAST 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
3. vs GASTQ4 11:03 4th & 11 at GAST 25, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
4. at MSSTQ4 8:48 4th & 2 at USA 17, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs GASTQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at USA 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. vs GASOQ3 4:38 4th & 17 at GASO 34, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. vs TROYQ3 10:30 4th & 8 at TROY 36, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs TROYQ2 9:51 4th & 1 at USA 11, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

74th 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

   MSST
2. L

   GASO
3. L

   UL
4. W

   NICH
5. W

   SDSU
6. L

   ARST
7. L

   TROY
8. W

   GAST
9. L

   ULM
10. W

    PRES
11. L

    IDHO
12. W

    NMSU
13. L

    AF

What moved it, 2016

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−0.90
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.33

Game by game

• MSSTW 21-20 at MSST3% → 92%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +90: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• GASOL 9-24 vs GASO18% → 2%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• ULL 23-28 at UL43% → 4%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• NICHW 41-40 vs NICH89% → 66%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −23: Timeouts −14, Clock +12
• SDSUW 42-24 vs SDSU14% → 99%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +55, Clock +1
• ARSTL 7-17 at ARST39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37
• TROYL 21-28 vs TROY29% → 9%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• GASTW 13-10 vs GAST64% → 78%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position +2
• ULML 35-42 at ULM80% → 8%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +18
• PRESW 31-7 vs PRES98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• IDHOL 31-38 at IDHO45% → 1%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• NMSUW 35-28 vs NMSU81% → 96%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +23
• AFL 21-45 at AF19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23

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.