South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0630th
  Defense+0.1537th
• 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.
  Offense38.3%14th
  Defense46.5%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3581st
  Defense+1.2163rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0417th
  Defense0.0070th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1752nd
  Defense+0.3412th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%21st
  Defense51.4%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.3%26th
  Defense34.2%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.4911th
  Defense2.8953rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.4%20th
  Defense19.3%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.2%10th
  Defense13.9%21st

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   USM
2. L
   TULN
3. L
   UAB
4. W
   TXST
5. W
   ULM
6. L
   GASO
7. L
   CCU
8. L
   UL
9. L
   GAST
10. W
    ARST
11. L
    TROY

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

Players, 2020

1. Desmond TrotterQB303 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 37th of 212 QBs
   0.79WAR0.26 to 1.36
2. Carlos DavisRB180 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 16th of 338 RBs
   0.57WAR0.39 to 0.72
3. Jalen TolbertWR88 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 4th of 409 WRs
   0.27WAR0.12 to 0.40
4. Chance LovertichQB90 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 120th of 212 QBs
   0.24WAR0.10 to 0.38
5. Kawaan BakerWR78 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 38th of 409 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
6. Terrion AveryRB44 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 226th of 338 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
7. Jared WilsonRB38 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 227th of 338 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
8. Jalen WayneWR45 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 95th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  266266115th of 127Roster talent: 266, 115th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  123123118th of 127Recruiting: 123, 118th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%60th of 127Returning production: 65%, 60th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.3−11.3111th of 127SP+ rating: −11.3, 111th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.09 of the 0.13 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 14:01 4th & 1 at TXST 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.7 pts
2. vs GASTQ3 5:16 4th & 1 at USA 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at USMQ3 2:15 4th & 3 at USM 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs GASTQ4 11:03 4th & 11 at GAST 45, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs TROYQ2 0:39 4th & 9 at TROY 36, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs ULMQ2 0:02 4th & 9 at ULM 45, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at ULQ3 7:23 4th & 7 at UL 16, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at ARSTQ3 9:49 4th & 5 at USA 45, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

55th of 127 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

   USM
2. L

   TULN
3. L

   UAB
4. W

   TXST
5. W

   ULM
6. L

   GASO
7. L

   CCU
8. L

   UL
9. L

   GAST
10. W

    ARST
11. L

    TROY

What moved it, 2020

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−0.70
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.63

Game by game

• USMW 32-21 at USM20% → 97%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +62, Clock +4
• TULNL 24-27 vs TULN24% → 6%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• UABL 10-42 vs UAB29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −35
• TXSTW 30-20 vs TXST62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• ULMW 38-14 vs ULM84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• GASOL 17-24 at GASO37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position +2
• CCUL 6-23 at CCU12% → 2%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18
• ULL 10-38 at UL16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• GASTL 14-31 vs GAST44% → 2%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• ARSTW 38-31 at ARST28% → 86%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• TROYL 0-29 vs TROY39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, 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.