South Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0941st
  Defense+0.2013th
• 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.
  Offense41.5%39th
  Defense43.2%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2134th
  Defense+1.2547th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1265th
  Defense+0.1516th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0616th
  Defense+0.2819th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%51st
  Defense50.4%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.0%26th
  Defense28.8%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0359th
  Defense3.1520th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%81st
  Defense16.9%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%79th
  Defense14.6%30th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   MORG
2. L
   TULN
3. L
   AUB
4. L
   CCU
5. L
   UNT
6. L
   TROY
7. L
   ARST
8. W
   GAST
9. L
   UL
10. W
    ULM
11. W
    USM
12. L
    TXST

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

Players, 2025

1. Bishop DavenportQB334 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 79th of 231 QBs
   1.14WAR0.52 to 1.71
2. Kentrel BullockRB173 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 72nd of 365 RBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.36
3. Keenan PhillipsRB114 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 100th of 365 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.27
4. Devin VoisinWR84 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 116th of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR0.01 to 0.31
5. Jeremy ScottWR31 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 208th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
6. Miller McCrumbyTE11 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 169th of 213 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
7. Anthony EagerWR51 plays · −0.057 pts/play · 449th of 451 WRs
   −0.05WAR−0.14 to 0.03
8. Aleksi PulkkinenP44 plays · −0.074 pts/play · 98th of 100 punters
   −0.06WAR−0.12 to 0.00

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  545545102nd of 134Roster talent: 545, 102nd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13913996th of 134Recruiting: 139, 96th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  25%25%79th of 132Returning production: 25%, 79th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.7−12.7112th of 134SP+ rating: −12.7, 112th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.06 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. vs ARSTQ4 7:51 4th & 28 at ARST 49, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.6 pts
2. at UNTQ4 12:18 4th & 15 at USA 46, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
3. vs MORGQ3 1:50 4th & 2 at USA 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at TROYQ4 13:50 4th & 5 at TROY 23, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs CCUQ2 11:50 4th & 6 at CCU 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TULNQ2 5:03 4th & 2 at USA 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at TROYQ2 11:55 4th & 3 at USA 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ULMQ4 5:41 4th & 18 at ULM 37, up 12Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

117th of 136 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

   MORG
2. L

   TULN
3. L

   AUB
4. L

   CCU
5. L

   UNT
6. L

   TROY
7. L

   ARST
8. W

   GAST
9. L

   UL
10. W

    ULM
11. W

    USM
12. L

    TXST

What moved it, 2025

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−1.36
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts−0.21
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• MORGW 38-21 vs MORG97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +8
• TULNL 31-33 vs TULN19% → 7%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• AUBL 15-31 at AUB4% → 1%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −9
• CCUL 20-38 vs CCU82% → 1%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −64, Clock −3
• UNTL 22-36 at UNT20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts +1
• TROYL 24-31 at TROY55% → 10%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −28, Clock −4
• ARSTL 14-15 vs ARST67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −22
• GASTW 38-31 at GAST61% → 95%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• ULL 22-31 vs UL59% → 3%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• ULMW 26-14 at ULM58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• USMW 42-35 vs USM44% → 97%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• TXSTL 26-49 at TXST25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, 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.