South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2385th
  Defense+0.0478th
• 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.
  Offense42.9%58th
  Defense36.8%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4396th
  Defense+1.2746th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1675th
  Defense−0.0892nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3782nd
  Defense+0.3120th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%23rd
  Defense42.2%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.7%95th
  Defense27.1%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2671st
  Defense2.7389th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.7%92nd
  Defense18.0%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%51st
  Defense17.8%72nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TULN
2. W
   SELA
3. W
   OKST
4. L
   CMU
5. L
   JMU
6. W
   ULM
7. W
   USM
8. L
   UL
9. L
   TROY
10. W
    ARST
11. W
    MRSH
12. L
    TXST
13. W
    EMU

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

Players, 2023

1. Carter BradleyQB275 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 69th of 250 QBs
   1.27WAR0.69 to 1.89
2. La'Damian WebbRB160 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 40th of 383 RBs
   0.39WAR0.23 to 0.54
3. Caullin LacyWR76 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 37th of 457 WRs
   0.25WAR0.03 to 0.46
4. Desmond TrotterQB40 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 195th of 250 QBs
   0.17WAR0.03 to 0.30
5. Kentrel BullockRB69 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 215th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Diego GuajardoPK15 plays · +0.373 pts/play · 30th of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Bam McReynoldsRB53 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 237th of 383 RBs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
8. Gio LopezQB48 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 224th of 250 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.06 to 0.21

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54654681st of 130Roster talent: 546, 81st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  131131101st of 130Recruiting: 131, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%8th of 128Returning production: 86%, 8th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.1+5.148th of 130SP+ rating: +5.1, 48th 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, 2023

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 0.03 of the 0.08 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 TROYQ2 5:34 4th & 1 at TROY 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs ULQ4 11:15 4th & 10 at USA 33, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
3. vs ULQ2 0:02 4th & 10 at UL 45, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at TULNQ2 8:09 4th & 1 at USA 23, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at TULNQ2 8:09 4th & 1 at USA 23, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at JMUQ4 0:02 4th & 26 at USA 34, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs ARSTQ2 5:51 4th & 5 at USA 41, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at ULMQ3 9:28 4th & 4 at ULM 25, up 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

126th of 133 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

   TULN
2. W

   SELA
3. W

   OKST
4. L

   CMU
5. L

   JMU
6. W

   ULM
7. W

   USM
8. L

   UL
9. L

   TROY
10. W

    ARST
11. W

    MRSH
12. L

    TXST
13. W

    EMU

What moved it, 2023

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−1.88
• Clock−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.15

Game by game

• TULNL 17-37 at TULN36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −36
• SELAW 35-17 vs SELA94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11
• OKSTW 33-7 at OKST35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• CMUL 30-34 vs CMU89% → 18%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• JMUL 23-31 at JMU58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −46
• ULMW 55-7 at ULM84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• USMW 55-3 vs USM89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• ULL 20-33 vs UL80% → 1%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −64, Clock −3
• TROYL 10-28 at TROY37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• ARSTW 21-14 vs ARST86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• MRSHW 28-0 vs MRSH81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• TXSTL 44-52 at TXST69% → 1%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −2
• EMUW 59-10 at EMU89% → 0%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −67

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.