South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0316th
  Defense+0.239th
• 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.
  Offense37.8%9th
  Defense47.8%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2253rd
  Defense+1.3413th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.123rd
  Defense+0.1326th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2467th
  Defense+0.375th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.4%9th
  Defense52.5%15th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.2%16th
  Defense35.4%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5514th
  Defense2.6879th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%26th
  Defense23.5%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%31st
  Defense14.5%19th

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, 2018

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
   LT
2. L
   OKST
3. W
   TXST
4. L
   MEM
5. L
   APP
6. L
   GASO
7. W
   ALST
8. L
   TROY
9. L
   ARST
10. L
    ULM
11. L
    UL
12. W
    CCU

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

Players, 2018

1. Evan OrthQB161 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 113th of 225 QBs
   0.69WAR0.39 to 1.00
2. Tra MinterRB161 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 112th of 351 RBs
   0.36WAR0.24 to 0.47
3. Cole GarvinQB89 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 171st of 225 QBs
   0.27WAR0.11 to 0.46
4. Jamarius WayWR54 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 62nd of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.26
5. Kawaan BakerWR74 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 72nd of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
6. Corliss WaitmanP38 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 3rd of 91 punters
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
7. Gavin PattersonPK11 plays · +0.428 pts/play · 73rd of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
8. Jordan McCrayWR22 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 330th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39439497th of 130Roster talent: 394, 97th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  124124101st of 130Recruiting: 124, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%64th of 129Returning production: 65%, 64th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.7−17.7117th of 130SP+ rating: −17.7, 117th of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.14 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 TXSTQ4 0:33 4th & 18 at TXST 18, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−9.7 pts
2. at ARSTQ2 4:05 4th & 1 at USA 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. vs CCUQ4 13:09 4th & 4 at CCU 44, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs TROYQ4 6:39 4th & 9 at TROY 36, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs ULMQ1 7:27 4th & 1 at USA 27, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs CCUQ2 0:23 4th & 1 at USA 42, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at MEMQ4 2:16 4th & 20 at MEM 37, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at OKSTQ3 13:59 4th & 2 at USA 37, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

86th 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   LT
2. L

   OKST
3. W

   TXST
4. L

   MEM
5. L

   APP
6. L

   GASO
7. W

   ALST
8. L

   TROY
9. L

   ARST
10. L

    ULM
11. L

    UL
12. W

    CCU

What moved it, 2018

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−1.18
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.61

Game by game

• LTL 26-30 vs LT23% → 8%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• OKSTL 13-55 at OKST3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• TXSTW 41-31 vs TXST75% → 97%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• MEML 35-52 at MEM3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7
• APPL 7-52 at APP6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• GASOL 13-48 at GASO19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −21
• TROYL 17-38 vs TROY25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• ARSTL 14-38 at ARST15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19
• ULML 10-38 vs ULM29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• ULL 38-48 at UL9% → 4%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16
• CCUW 31-28 vs CCU56% → 94%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2

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.