South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2084th
  Defense−0.0491st
• 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.
  Offense43.0%50th
  Defense35.3%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3089th
  Defense+1.393rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1375th
  Defense−0.1094th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3390th
  Defense+0.0184th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%38th
  Defense36.4%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.7%79th
  Defense33.4%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9560th
  Defense2.2896th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.0%24th
  Defense28.3%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%92nd
  Defense20.3%90th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   SJSU
2. W
   STBK
3. W
   ILL
4. W
   TEM
5. W
   ECU
6. W
   CIN
7. W
   TULN
8. L
   HOU
9. W
   CONN
10. W
    TLSA
11. L
    UCF
12. W
    TTU

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

Players, 2017

1. Quinton FlowersQB440 plays · +0.319 pts/play · 3rd of 226 QBs
   2.63WAR1.79 to 3.39
2. Darius TiceRB132 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 48th of 352 RBs
   0.42WAR0.27 to 0.54
3. D'Ernest JohnsonRB170 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 78th of 352 RBs
   0.35WAR0.21 to 0.48
4. Emilio NadelmanPK15 plays · +0.494 pts/play · 27th of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
5. Tyre McCantsWR40 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 118th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Marquez Valdes-ScantlingWR74 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 118th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.20
7. Darnell SalomonWR39 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 156th of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
8. Temi AlakaWR16 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 340th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.06

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55455459th of 130Roster talent: 554, 59th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16616664th of 130Recruiting: 166, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%21st of 128Returning production: 82%, 21st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.2+10.232nd of 128SP+ rating: +10.2, 32nd of 128 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, 2017

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 0.10 of the 0.18 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 ILLQ4 7:53 4th & 2 at ILL 11, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. vs ILLQ4 2:18 4th & 8 at ILL 40, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs HOUQ4 1:46 4th & 4 at HOU 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs TLSAQ4 2:34 4th & 1 at USF 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at TULNQ2 10:05 4th & 1 at USF 11, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs TEMQ2 4:45 4th & 2 at TEM 10, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs CINQ4 14:56 4th & 2 at CIN 8, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at SJSUQ4 14:54 4th & 1 at USF 32, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

60th of 130 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

   SJSU
2. W

   STBK
3. W

   ILL
4. W

   TEM
5. W

   ECU
6. W

   CIN
7. W

   TULN
8. L

   HOU
9. W

   CONN
10. W

    TLSA
11. L

    UCF
12. W

    TTU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.79
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.92

Game by game

• SJSUW 42-22 at SJSU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14, Clock +1
• STBKW 31-17 vs STBK98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +5
• ILLW 47-23 vs ILL87% → 91%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position +1
• TEMW 43-7 vs TEM90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +12
• ECUW 61-31 at ECU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• CINW 33-3 vs CIN93% → 97%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +12
• TULNW 34-28 at TULN82% → 91%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• HOUL 24-28 vs HOU77% → 16%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• CONNW 37-20 at CONN94% → 98%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +15
• TLSAW 27-20 vs TLSA95% → 96%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +12
• UCFL 42-49 at UCF25% → 4%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• TTUW 38-34 vs TTU59% → 80%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +19, 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.