South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0716th
  Defense+0.2711th
• 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.
  Offense42.3%42nd
  Defense48.9%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.159th
  Defense+1.3039th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0833rd
  Defense+0.2414th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0716th
  Defense+0.3217th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%40th
  Defense56.2%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%53rd
  Defense30.9%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8421st
  Defense3.1437th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%18th
  Defense17.6%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%45th
  Defense12.2%5th

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, 2021

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
   NCSU
2. L
   FLA
3. W
   FAMU
4. L
   BYU
5. L
   SMU
6. L
   TLSA
7. W
   TEM
8. L
   ECU
9. L
   HOU
10. L
    CIN
11. L
    TULN
12. L
    UCF

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

Players, 2021

1. Timmy McClainQB255 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 97th of 219 QBs
   0.90WAR0.46 to 1.37
2. Jaren ManghamRB109 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 110th of 387 RBs
   0.37WAR0.25 to 0.49
3. Brian BattieRB35 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 260th of 387 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
4. Kelley JoinerRB49 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 275th of 387 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.16
5. Xavier WeaverWR44 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 195th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Jimmy Horn Jr.WR27 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 276th of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Katravis MarshQB33 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 202nd of 219 QBs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
8. Spencer ShraderPK10 plays · +0.332 pts/play · 82nd of 128 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54154173rd of 130Roster talent: 541, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16116173rd of 130Recruiting: 161, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  92%92%19th of 128Returning production: 92%, 19th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.1−12.1110th of 130SP+ rating: −12.1, 110th 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, 2021

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. at UCFQ4 5:56 4th & 7 at UCF 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs HOUQ3 10:18 4th & 4 at midfield, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at UCFQ2 1:18 4th & 1 at USF 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at TULNQ2 0:05 4th & 4 at TULN 34, down 28Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at ECUQ3 0:00 4th & 5 at ECU 46, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at NCSUQ3 11:01 4th & 1 at USF 15, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs TLSAQ1 0:00 4th & 11 at TLSA 27, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at SMUQ1 1:46 4th & 5 at SMU 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

105th 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

   NCSU
2. L

   FLA
3. W

   FAMU
4. L

   BYU
5. L

   SMU
6. L

   TLSA
7. W

   TEM
8. L

   ECU
9. L

   HOU
10. L

    CIN
11. L

    TULN
12. L

    UCF

What moved it, 2021

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−1.67
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.78

Game by game

• NCSUL 0-45 at NCSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −14
• FLAL 20-42 vs FLA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −9
• FAMUW 38-17 vs FAMU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• BYUL 27-35 at BYU9% → 3%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• SMUL 17-41 at SMU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• TLSAL 31-32 vs TLSA38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• TEMW 34-14 vs TEM61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts −2
• ECUL 14-29 at ECU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• HOUL 42-54 vs HOU21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• CINL 28-45 vs CIN7% → 2%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16
• TULNL 14-45 at TULN36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −36
• UCFL 13-17 at UCF15% → 19%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +4: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position +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.