South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.0210th
  Defense+0.1534th
• 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.
  Offense37.5%8th
  Defense46.6%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1738th
  Defense+1.1280th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0230th
  Defense+0.0749th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.069th
  Defense+0.3015th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.9%16th
  Defense49.1%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.
  Offense25.2%5th
  Defense40.6%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8847th
  Defense2.7763rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%51st
  Defense19.5%52nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.2%22nd
  Defense18.4%30th

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, 2019

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
   NEB
2. W
   JKST
3. L
   MEM
4. L
   UAB
5. L
   ULM
6. L
   GASO
7. L
   TROY
8. L
   APP
9. L
   TXST
10. L
    UL
11. L
    GAST
12. W
    ARST

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

Players, 2019

1. Desmond TrotterQB116 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 126th of 228 QBs
   0.49WAR0.25 to 0.71
2. Tra MinterRB166 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 95th of 349 RBs
   0.40WAR0.26 to 0.53
3. Cephus Johnson IIIQB131 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 151st of 228 QBs
   0.35WAR0.11 to 0.58
4. Kawaan BakerWR54 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 179th of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
5. Jalen TolbertWR35 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 267th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
6. Jack BrooksP50 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 66th of 100 punters
   0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.10

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  381381110th of 130Roster talent: 381, 110th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122111th of 130Recruiting: 122, 111th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  25%25%125th of 130Returning production: 25%, 125th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.3−20.3122nd of 130SP+ rating: −20.3, 122nd 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, 2019

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 0.05 of the 0.09 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 ARSTQ4 9:22 4th & 2 at USA 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs ULQ3 6:41 4th & 2 at USA 30, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs MEMQ2 10:25 4th & 1 at USA 27, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at ULMQ3 8:27 4th & 4 at ULM 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at ULMQ4 7:02 4th & 3 at ULM 22, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at GASTQ2 13:14 4th & 15 at GAST 35, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at TROYQ1 5:15 4th & 1 at TROY 1, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at TXSTQ2 8:21 4th & 4 at USA 46, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

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.

1. L

   NEB
2. W

   JKST
3. L

   MEM
4. L

   UAB
5. L

   ULM
6. L

   GASO
7. L

   TROY
8. L

   APP
9. L

   TXST
10. L

    UL
11. L

    GAST
12. W

    ARST

What moved it, 2019

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−1.22
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.09

Game by game

• NEBL 21-35 at NEB1% → 1%Before kickoff −49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −5
• JKSTW 37-14 vs JKST93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• MEML 6-42 vs MEM7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• UABL 3-35 at UAB19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −21
• ULML 17-30 at ULM15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• GASOL 17-20 vs GASO24% → 28%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +4: Scoreboard −32, Clock +18
• TROYL 13-37 at TROY11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16
• APPL 3-30 vs APP4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• TXSTL 28-30 at TXST31% → 14%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• ULL 27-37 vs UL4% → 4%Before kickoff −46 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −13, Clock −1
• GASTL 15-28 at GAST22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26
• ARSTW 34-30 vs ARST23% → 95%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +41, 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.