South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.3398th
  Defense+0.1531st
• 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.
  Offense46.9%80th
  Defense48.7%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4799th
  Defense+1.1284th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.4099th
  Defense+0.1230th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2677th
  Defense+0.1939th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.6%82nd
  Defense52.9%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.9%68th
  Defense37.6%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4498th
  Defense3.1518th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.8%81st
  Defense17.5%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%94th
  Defense13.0%11th

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, 2016

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

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

Players, 2016

1. Quinton FlowersQB381 plays · +0.340 pts/play · 9th of 218 QBs
   2.42WAR1.82 to 3.04
2. Marlon MackRB163 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 43rd of 347 RBs
   0.54WAR0.37 to 0.74
3. D'Ernest JohnsonRB83 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 170th of 347 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.29
4. Rodney AdamsWR84 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 66th of 417 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.34
5. Tyre McCantsWR32 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 171st of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
6. Ryeshene BronsonWR14 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 373rd of 417 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
7. Darius TiceRB12 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 275th of 347 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
8. Emilio NadelmanPK4 plays · +0.303 pts/play · 109th of 116 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56456454th of 128Roster talent: 564, 54th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117155th of 128Recruiting: 171, 55th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%19th of 128Returning production: 89%, 19th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.8+9.840th of 128SP+ rating: +9.8, 40th 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, 2016

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 1 clear-cut one accounts for 0.01 of the 0.07 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 MEMQ2 1:02 4th & 4 at USF 26, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.0 pts
2. at SYRQ2 7:44 4th & 3 at midfield, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
3. vs FSUQ2 14:10 4th & 1 at USF 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
4. at SMUQ2 5:41 4th & 7 at SMU 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
5. vs SCQ3 8:07 4th & 4 at SC 4, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
6. vs SCQ2 0:07 4th & 3 at SC 37, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.5 pts
7. at SMUQ4 11:58 4th & 4 at USF 45, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs ECUQ3 5:27 4th & 9 at ECU 36, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

34th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   TOW
2. W

   NIU
3. W

   SYR
4. L

   FSU
5. W

   CIN
6. W

   ECU
7. W

   CONN
8. L

   TEM
9. W

   NAVY
10. W

    MEM
11. W

    SMU
12. W

    UCF
13. W

    SC

What moved it, 2016

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+1.63
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.08

Game by game

• TOWW 56-20 vs TOW90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• NIUW 48-17 vs NIU81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +21
• SYRW 45-20 at SYR81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• FSUL 35-55 vs FSU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −37, Clock −3
• CINW 45-20 at CIN69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• ECUW 38-22 vs ECU91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 42-27 vs CONN88% → 98%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18
• TEML 30-46 at TEM66% → 1%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −2
• NAVYW 52-45 vs NAVY81% → 89%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• MEMW 49-42 at MEM63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• SMUW 35-27 at SMU79% → 96%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• SCW 46-39 vs SC77% → 78%Before kickoff +27 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +15

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.