South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1662nd
  Defense+0.0379th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%50th
  Defense37.6%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2760th
  Defense+1.2548th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1156th
  Defense−0.0286th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2975th
  Defense+0.1568th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%52nd
  Defense46.3%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.4%35th
  Defense22.3%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0342nd
  Defense2.8678th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.5%89th
  Defense17.4%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%82nd
  Defense16.6%56th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   NICH
2. W
   CMU
3. L
   UCLA
4. W
   LT
5. W
   UL
6. W
   ULM
7. L
   TROY
8. W
   ARST
9. W
   GASO
10. W
    TXST
11. W
    USM
12. W
    ODU
13. L
    WKU

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

Players, 2022

1. Carter BradleyQB420 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 75th of 234 QBs
   0.98WAR0.19 to 1.78
2. La'Damian WebbRB186 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 35th of 384 RBs
   0.49WAR0.32 to 0.66
3. Devin VoisinWR72 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 21st of 455 WRs
   0.28WAR0.14 to 0.40
4. Jalen WayneWR75 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 48th of 455 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.34
5. Bam McReynoldsRB67 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 186th of 384 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
6. Caullin LacyWR56 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 160th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.01 to 0.25
7. Jack BrooksP42 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 30th of 102 punters
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.18
8. Diego GuajardoPK16 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 30th of 110 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46646688th of 129Roster talent: 466, 88th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  123123115th of 129Recruiting: 123, 115th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%102nd of 128Returning production: 32%, 102nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.8+10.833rd of 129SP+ rating: +10.8, 33rd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.02 of the 0.06 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 UCLAQ2 1:50 4th & 2 at USA 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. at ARSTQ2 1:11 4th & 12 at USA 48, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
3. vs TROYQ4 4:01 4th & 11 at TROY 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs TXSTQ3 4:04 4th & 2 at USA 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at USMQ2 9:55 4th & 6 at USA 32, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at ARSTQ3 1:36 4th & 1 at USA 15, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs ULMQ3 3:51 4th & 3 at ULM 11, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at GASOQ1 3:24 4th & 3 at USA 32, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

15th of 131 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

   NICH
2. W

   CMU
3. L

   UCLA
4. W

   LT
5. W

   UL
6. W

   ULM
7. L

   TROY
8. W

   ARST
9. W

   GASO
10. W

    TXST
11. W

    USM
12. W

    ODU
13. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2022

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+1.92
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.63

Game by game

• NICHW 48-7 vs NICH82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• CMUW 38-24 at CMU33% → 99%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
• UCLAL 31-32 at UCLA13% → 5%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• LTW 38-14 vs LT82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23
• ULW 20-17 at UL73% → 95%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• ULMW 41-34 vs ULM87% → 92%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• TROYL 6-10 vs TROY59% → 13%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• ARSTW 31-3 at ARST73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33
• GASOW 38-31 at GASO58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• TXSTW 38-21 vs TXST87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• USMW 27-20 at USM64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• ODUW 27-20 vs ODU84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• WKUL 23-44 vs WKU61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −57, 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.