South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1236th
  Defense+0.1072nd
• 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.
  Offense41.3%36th
  Defense38.9%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2750th
  Defense+1.3132nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0420th
  Defense+0.0378th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2145th
  Defense+0.2150th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%37th
  Defense44.1%84th
• 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%32nd
  Defense28.3%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7210th
  Defense2.7978th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.3%5th
  Defense21.7%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%23rd
  Defense16.3%43rd

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, 2021

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. W
   BGSU
3. W
   ALCN
4. L
   UL
5. L
   TXST
6. W
   GASO
7. L
   ULM
8. W
   ARST
9. L
   TROY
10. L
    APP
11. L
    TENN
12. L
    CCU

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

Players, 2021

1. Jake BentleyQB242 plays · +0.311 pts/play · 64th of 219 QBs
   1.41WAR0.91 to 1.89
2. Desmond TrotterQB114 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 151st of 219 QBs
   0.38WAR0.20 to 0.57
3. Jalen TolbertWR74 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 19th of 474 WRs
   0.32WAR0.21 to 0.43
4. Terrion AveryRB116 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 165th of 387 RBs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.38
5. Jalen WayneWR44 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 151st of 474 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
6. Jack BrooksP28 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 43rd of 101 punters
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Caullin LacyWR30 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 327th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Diego GuajardoPK11 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 95th of 128 kickers
   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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  415415101st of 130Roster talent: 415, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  123123120th of 130Recruiting: 123, 120th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%59th of 128Returning production: 78%, 59th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.2−7.298th of 130SP+ rating: −7.2, 98th 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, 2021

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 0.21 of the 0.25 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 BGSUQ4 0:00 4th & 8 at BGSU 36, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−19.5 pts
2. vs USMQ3 2:15 4th & 3 at USM 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at ULMQ4 1:22 4th & 5 at ULM 21, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs CCUQ2 10:34 4th & 4 at USA 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at BGSUQ2 1:15 4th & 4 at USA 48, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at APPQ4 12:30 4th & 2 at USA 14, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at BGSUQ2 14:14 4th & 4 at BGSU 4, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at TENNQ2 6:41 4th & 6 at USA 41, down 28Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

98th 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. W

   USM
2. W

   BGSU
3. W

   ALCN
4. L

   UL
5. L

   TXST
6. W

   GASO
7. L

   ULM
8. W

   ARST
9. L

   TROY
10. L

    APP
11. L

    TENN
12. L

    CCU

What moved it, 2021

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+0.63
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.24

Game by game

• USMW 31-7 vs USM59% → 98%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• BGSUW 22-19 at BGSU84% → 26%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −11, Possession & field position +2
• ALCNW 28-21 vs ALCN91% → 90%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• ULL 18-20 vs UL21% → 41%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard −17
• TXSTL 31-33 at TXST64% → 61%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +7, Clock +1
• GASOW 41-14 vs GASO61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39
• ULML 31-41 at ULM80% → 3%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −44, Possession & field position −2
• ARSTW 31-13 vs ARST74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29
• TROYL 24-31 at TROY40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• APPL 7-31 at APP8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• TENNL 14-60 at TENN4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• CCUL 21-27 vs CCU15% → 33%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −16

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.