South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1553rd
  Defense+0.0755th
• 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.
  Offense47.4%74th
  Defense43.7%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.108th
  Defense+1.0197th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1458th
  Defense−0.0274th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1943rd
  Defense+0.1747th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.9%82nd
  Defense50.2%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%64th
  Defense29.1%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8728th
  Defense2.9051st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%21st
  Defense22.1%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.3%85th
  Defense15.1%38th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Florida 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
   FIU
2. W
   ARMY
3. W
   DSU
4. W
   BGSU
5. L
   TEM
6. L
   UTSA

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

Players, 2026

1. D.J. CrowtherRB85 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 53rd of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
2. Jason Collins Jr.RB35 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
3. Nico GramaticaPK7 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 33rd of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
4. Luke GoaterP20 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 21st of 84 punters
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.05
5. Michael Van Buren Jr.QB3 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 190th of 192 QBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
6. Luke KromenhoekQB4 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 192nd of 192 QBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01
7. Mudia ReubenWR1 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 341st of 364 WRs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00
8. Cameron SeldonWR2 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 358th of 364 WRs
   0.00WAR0.00 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 Florida'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70470452nd of 138Roster talent: 704, 52nd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18318370th of 138Recruiting: 183, 70th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%117th of 136Returning production: 13%, 117th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.6+0.668th of 138SP+ rating so far: +0.6, 68th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Florida'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 0.06 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 BGSUQ3 1:20 4th & 1 at USF 18, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. at ARMYQ4 10:56 4th & 3 at USF 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs TEMQ4 12:51 4th & 6 at TEM 31, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs FIUQ2 3:04 4th & 4 at USF 41, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs DSUQ4 1:51 4th & 3 at DSU 3, up 39Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs FIUQ1 10:28 4th & 4 at FIU 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

71st of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up South Florida's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   FIU
2. W

   ARMY
3. W

   DSU
4. W

   BGSU
5. L

   TEM
6. L

   UTSA

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at South Florida'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−0.50
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• FIUW 19-9 vs FIU82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −1
• ARMYW 28-24 at ARMY42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• DSUW 59-17 vs DSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BGSUW 14-6 at BGSU87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +25, Clock +2
• TEML 13-17 vs TEM62% → 19%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• UTSAL 24-31 at UTSA29% → 7%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −2

Points of win probability, from South Florida's side.

Closest call

BYU 23-27 USF (2019) - South Florida dropped to a 1.7% win probability before pulling it out.