South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0731st
  Defense+0.1630th
• 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.
  Offense39.4%23rd
  Defense40.1%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2855th
  Defense+1.484th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0430th
  Defense+0.0561st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1836th
  Defense+0.3215th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.0%32nd
  Defense45.5%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.5%29th
  Defense30.1%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0136th
  Defense2.7786th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%40th
  Defense21.2%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%47th
  Defense18.8%85th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   WKU
2. W
   FAMU
3. L
   ALA
4. W
   RICE
5. W
   NAVY
6. L
   UAB
7. L
   FAU
8. W
   CONN
9. L
   MEM
10. W
    TEM
11. L
    UTSA
12. W
    CLT
13. W
    SYR

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

Players, 2023

1. Byrum BrownQB444 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 16th of 250 QBs
   2.04WAR1.17 to 3.09
2. Sean AtkinsWR79 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 19th of 457 WRs
   0.30WAR0.12 to 0.49
3. Nay'Quan WrightRB153 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 73rd of 383 RBs
   0.29WAR0.14 to 0.43
4. Andrew StokesP39 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 33rd of 103 punters
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. K'Wan PowellRB48 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 244th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Khafre BrownWR25 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 208th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
7. Naiem SimmonsWR34 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 211th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
8. Michel DukesRB34 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 273rd of 383 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62362365th of 130Roster talent: 623, 65th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15315381st of 130Recruiting: 153, 81st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%74th of 128Returning production: 46%, 74th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.6−6.683rd of 130SP+ rating: −6.6, 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, 2023

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 0.08 of the 0.13 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 CONNQ4 0:09 4th & 6 at CONN 28, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.6 pts
2. at CONNQ3 11:39 4th & 2 at USF 29, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. vs CLTQ3 9:09 4th & 3 at CLT 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at MEMQ4 8:37 4th & 10 at USF 47, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs ALAQ2 7:29 4th & 16 at ALA 34, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at UABQ3 9:07 4th & 15 at UAB 40, down 28Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs FAUQ1 5:24 4th & 1 at USF 13, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ALAQ3 12:00 4th & 7 at USF 47, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

26th of 133 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

   WKU
2. W

   FAMU
3. L

   ALA
4. W

   RICE
5. W

   NAVY
6. L

   UAB
7. L

   FAU
8. W

   CONN
9. L

   MEM
10. W

    TEM
11. L

    UTSA
12. W

    CLT
13. W

    SYR

What moved it, 2023

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+0.90
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• WKUL 24-41 at WKU22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25
• FAMUW 38-24 vs FAMU91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 3-17 vs ALA2% → 2%Before kickoff −48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −8
• RICEW 42-29 vs RICE43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• NAVYW 44-30 at NAVY42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• UABL 35-56 at UAB59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −52, Clock +1
• FAUL 14-56 vs FAU58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• CONNW 24-21 at CONN51% → 84%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• MEML 50-59 at MEM16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• TEMW 27-23 vs TEM66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• UTSAL 21-49 at UTSA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• CLTW 48-14 vs CLT74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• SYRW 45-0 at SYR36% → 100%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +59, Clock +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.