South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1878th
  Defense+0.0373rd
• 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.
  Offense44.2%61st
  Defense38.7%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2781st
  Defense+1.2524th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1687th
  Defense+0.0457th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2569th
  Defense+0.0479th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%66th
  Defense44.2%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.2%49th
  Defense29.1%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1585th
  Defense2.5187th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%72nd
  Defense26.1%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.5%21st
  Defense3.5%98th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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
   FAMU
2. L
   FSU
3. L
   MD
4. L
   MEM
5. W
   SYR
6. W
   CONN
7. W
   SMU
8. L
   NAVY
9. W
   ECU
10. W
    TEM
11. W
    CIN
12. W
    UCF
13. L
    WKU

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

Players, 2015

1. Quinton FlowersQB368 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 33rd of 205 QBs
   1.89WAR1.27 to 2.50
2. Marlon MackRB176 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 36th of 333 RBs
   0.41WAR0.25 to 0.58
3. Rodney AdamsWR64 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 95th of 411 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.29
4. D'Ernest JohnsonRB68 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 185th of 333 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Mattias CiabattiP39 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 34th of 92 punters
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Emilio NadelmanPK16 plays · +0.333 pts/play · 72nd of 115 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
7. Darius TiceRB59 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 212th of 333 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Steven BenchQB4 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 202nd of 205 QBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53053061st of 128Roster talent: 530, 61st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17617652nd of 128Recruiting: 176, 52nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%106th of 127Returning production: 39%, 106th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.6+3.663rd of 128SP+ rating: +3.6, 63rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.15 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 MEMQ3 7:34 4th & 1 at USF 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it3.0 pts
2. vs MEMQ3 12:34 4th & 1 at USF 17, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
3. vs WKUQ3 0:11 4th & 1 at USF 21, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
4. at ECUQ4 9:53 4th & 2 at USF 41, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
5. at NAVYQ2 4:16 4th & 1 at USF 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
6. at NAVYQ3 10:56 4th & 3 at USF 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs WKUQ4 3:58 4th & 8 at USF 33, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.7 pts
8. at FSUQ3 4:45 4th & 7 at FSU 37, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

15th of 128 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

   FAMU
2. L

   FSU
3. L

   MD
4. L

   MEM
5. W

   SYR
6. W

   CONN
7. W

   SMU
8. L

   NAVY
9. W

   ECU
10. W

    TEM
11. W

    CIN
12. W

    UCF
13. L

    WKU

What moved it, 2015

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+1.55
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.30

Game by game

• FAMUW 51-3 vs FAMU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +26
• FSUL 14-34 at FSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• MDL 17-35 at MD33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• MEML 17-24 vs MEM23% → 5%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• SYRW 45-24 vs SYR61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39
• CONNW 28-20 at CONN50% → 97%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• SMUW 38-14 vs SMU79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position −1
• NAVYL 17-29 at NAVY23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• ECUW 22-17 at ECU47% → 88%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• TEMW 44-23 vs TEM42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +2
• CINW 65-27 vs CIN37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −1
• UCFW 44-3 at UCF92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• WKUL 35-45 vs WKU39% → 5%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3

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.