South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0623rd
  Defense+0.0863rd
• 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.
  Offense39.3%18th
  Defense45.9%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1736th
  Defense+1.1574th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1374th
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0014th
  Defense+0.1164th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%16th
  Defense51.0%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%15th
  Defense33.3%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0874th
  Defense3.0826th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%77th
  Defense21.7%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.8%19th
  Defense24.4%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, 2019

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. L
   WIS
2. L
   GT
3. W
   SCST
4. L
   SMU
5. W
   CONN
6. W
   BYU
7. L
   NAVY
8. W
   ECU
9. L
   TEM
10. L
    CIN
11. L
    MEM
12. L
    UCF

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

Players, 2019

1. Jordan McCloudQB242 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 121st of 228 QBs
   0.52WAR0.01 to 0.97
2. Jordan CronkriteRB126 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 130th of 349 RBs
   0.33WAR0.20 to 0.46
3. Blake BarnettQB52 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 202nd of 228 QBs
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.22
4. Mitchell WilcoxTE31 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 23rd of 207 TEs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
5. Randall St. FelixWR37 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 311th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.11
6. Jah'Quez EvansWR14 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 371st of 439 WRs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
7. Johnny FordRB20 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 290th of 349 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Coby WeissPK3 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 109th of 114 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56056069th of 130Roster talent: 560, 69th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216273rd of 130Recruiting: 162, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%33rd of 130Returning production: 74%, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.8−9.8103rd of 130SP+ rating: −9.8, 103rd 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, 2019

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 0.03 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. vs CINQ2 2:11 4th & 2 at USF 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at GTQ4 6:16 4th & 4 at USF 23, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at GTQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at USF 31, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at CONNQ4 9:07 4th & 18 at CONN 22, up 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs TEMQ4 0:38 4th & 14 at USF 5, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TEMQ2 11:49 4th & 2 at USF 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at UCFQ4 7:45 4th & 5 at UCF 22, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs SMUQ4 0:14 4th & 11 at SMU 24, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

94th 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. L

   WIS
2. L

   GT
3. W

   SCST
4. L

   SMU
5. W

   CONN
6. W

   BYU
7. L

   NAVY
8. W

   ECU
9. L

   TEM
10. L

    CIN
11. L

    MEM
12. L

    UCF

What moved it, 2019

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−1.85
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.43

Game by game

• WISL 0-49 vs WIS23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• GTL 10-14 at GT39% → 10%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• SCSTW 55-16 vs SCST93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• SMUL 21-48 vs SMU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• CONNW 48-22 at CONN82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +25
• BYUW 27-23 vs BYU40% → 2%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• NAVYL 3-35 at NAVY18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20
• ECUW 45-20 at ECU51% → 100%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52, Clock +1
• TEML 7-17 vs TEM56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• CINL 17-20 vs CIN19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• MEML 10-49 vs MEM17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23
• UCFL 7-34 at UCF6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8

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.