South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1461st
  Defense+0.1436th
• 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%58th
  Defense42.5%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2151st
  Defense+1.3215th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1678th
  Defense+0.1618th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1547th
  Defense+0.1257th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.7%53rd
  Defense46.4%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.3%58th
  Defense34.7%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1379th
  Defense2.9939th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%72nd
  Defense20.1%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%58th
  Defense16.6%59th

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, 2018

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
   ELON
2. W
   GT
3. W
   ILL
4. W
   ECU
5. W
   MASS
6. W
   TLSA
7. W
   CONN
8. L
   HOU
9. L
   TULN
10. L
    CIN
11. L
    TEM
12. L
    UCF
13. L
    MRSH

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

Players, 2018

1. Blake BarnettQB315 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 99th of 225 QBs
   0.84WAR0.29 to 1.42
2. Jordan CronkriteRB166 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 56th of 351 RBs
   0.51WAR0.38 to 0.66
3. Johnny FordRB89 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 105th of 351 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.44
4. Chris OladokunQB55 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 193rd of 225 QBs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
5. Darnell SalomonWR36 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 144th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Tyre McCantsWR73 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.20
7. Coby WeissPK15 plays · +0.355 pts/play · 57th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. Randall St. FelixWR47 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 190th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54954962nd of 130Roster talent: 549, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16316369th of 130Recruiting: 163, 69th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%119th of 129Returning production: 28%, 119th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.2−1.283rd of 130SP+ rating: −1.2, 83rd of 130 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, 2018

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.16 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 TEMQ3 3:53 4th & 4 at TEM 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at TLSAQ3 4:30 4th & 1 at USF 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs UCFQ4 10:10 4th & 1 at USF 43, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs ECUQ4 2:14 4th & 1 at USF 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs GTQ2 0:22 4th & 15 at GT 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
6. at CINQ2 0:58 4th & 6 at CIN 40, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at TEMQ4 8:13 4th & 10 at TEM 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs MRSHQ2 8:01 4th & 15 at MRSH 29, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

45th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   ELON
2. W

   GT
3. W

   ILL
4. W

   ECU
5. W

   MASS
6. W

   TLSA
7. W

   CONN
8. L

   HOU
9. L

   TULN
10. L

    CIN
11. L

    TEM
12. L

    UCF
13. L

    MRSH

What moved it, 2018

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+0.43
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.19

Game by game

• ELONW 34-14 vs ELON96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• GTW 49-38 vs GT35% → 96%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +44, Possession & field position −3
• ILLW 25-19 at ILL79% → 88%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• ECUW 20-13 vs ECU90% → 96%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• MASSW 58-42 at MASS79% → 98%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• TLSAW 25-24 at TLSA70% → 95%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• CONNW 38-30 vs CONN97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• HOUL 36-57 at HOU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• CINL 23-35 at CIN14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• TEML 17-27 at TEM16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• UCFL 10-38 vs UCF11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• MRSHL 20-38 vs MRSH40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45, Clock −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.