South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.045th
  Defense+0.0757th
• 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.
  Offense39.2%13th
  Defense44.5%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0711th
  Defense+1.1081st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.181st
  Defense−0.0275th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0727th
  Defense+0.2033rd
• 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%24th
  Defense48.4%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.6%13th
  Defense35.8%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.081st
  Defense3.0329th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense30.1%1st
  Defense17.7%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.9%3rd
  Defense14.0%16th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   MISS
2. L
   OKST
3. W
   AAMU
4. L
   IDHO
5. L
   LT
6. W
   TROY
7. W
   ULM
8. L
   GAST
9. L
   UL
10. W
    ARST
11. L
    GASO
12. L
    NMSU

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

Players, 2017

1. Cole GarvinQB224 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 104th of 226 QBs
   0.74WAR0.34 to 1.15
2. Dallas DavisQB143 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 124th of 226 QBs
   0.49WAR0.22 to 0.75
3. Corliss WaitmanP50 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 6th of 95 punters
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.30
4. Tra MinterRB98 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 196th of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
5. Jamarius WayWR59 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 112th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.19
6. Gavin PattersonPK14 plays · +0.497 pts/play · 36th of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
7. Xavier JohnsonRB57 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 230th of 352 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. Sam HarrisWR53 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 146th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  38838888th of 130Roster talent: 388, 88th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118101st of 130Recruiting: 118, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%88th of 128Returning production: 51%, 88th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.0−12.0106th of 128SP+ rating: −12.0, 106th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.11 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 NMSUQ2 9:51 4th & 1 at USA 30, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs ULQ4 0:59 4th & 13 at UL 18, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
3. vs IDHOQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at USA 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at GASTQ2 0:05 4th & 2 at USA 48, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at GASOQ1 2:00 4th & 1 at USA 34, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at GASTQ4 4:41 4th & 7 at GAST 7, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at LTQ4 12:17 4th & 6 at midfield, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at MISSQ2 7:35 4th & 3 at MISS 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

92nd of 130 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. L

   MISS
2. L

   OKST
3. W

   AAMU
4. L

   IDHO
5. L

   LT
6. W

   TROY
7. W

   ULM
8. L

   GAST
9. L

   UL
10. W

    ARST
11. L

    GASO
12. L

    NMSU

What moved it, 2017

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−0.51
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.66

Game by game

• MISSL 27-47 at MISS8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12
• OKSTL 7-44 vs OKST3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• AAMUW 45-0 vs AAMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• IDHOL 23-29 vs IDHO66% → 10%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −19
• LTL 16-34 at LT24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• TROYW 19-8 at TROY10% → 96%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +87: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• ULMW 33-23 vs ULM56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position +1
• GASTL 13-21 at GAST45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• ULL 14-19 vs UL71% → 5%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• ARSTW 24-19 vs ARST19% → 93%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• GASOL 0-52 at GASO70% → 0%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −59, Possession & field position −1
• NMSUL 17-22 at NMSU20% → 96%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +59, Clock +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.