South Florida

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1037th
  Defense+0.0951st
• 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.
  Offense38.3%13th
  Defense39.2%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3586th
  Defense+1.3716th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1882nd
  Defense−0.0282nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0417th
  Defense+0.2037th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%24th
  Defense43.1%85th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.1%9th
  Defense31.6%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0656th
  Defense2.6387th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%67th
  Defense24.3%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%64th
  Defense19.7%87th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   BCU
2. L
   ALA
3. W
   USM
4. L
   MIA
5. L
   TULN
6. L
   MEM
7. W
   UAB
8. W
   FAU
9. L
   NAVY
10. W
    CLT
11. W
    TLSA
12. L
    RICE
13. W
    SJSU

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

Players, 2024

1. Byrum BrownQB131 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 129th of 232 QBs
   0.54WAR0.31 to 0.76
2. Bryce ArchieQB252 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 143rd of 232 QBs
   0.39WAR−0.08 to 0.87
3. Kelley JoinerRB100 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 111th of 373 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.33
4. Andrew StokesP55 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 5th of 106 punters
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.26
5. Nay'Quan WrightRB95 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 160th of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.26
6. Ta'Ron KeithRB54 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 191st of 373 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
7. Sean AtkinsWR61 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 129th of 452 WRs
   0.11WAR−0.04 to 0.28
8. Michael Brown-StephensWR20 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 233rd of 452 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64164169th of 131Roster talent: 641, 69th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16716773rd of 131Recruiting: 167, 73rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%8th of 130Returning production: 86%, 8th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.3−2.377th of 131SP+ rating: −2.3, 77th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.08 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 ALAQ4 11:50 4th & 1 at USF 13, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at ALAQ4 6:45 4th & 4 at ALA 4, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs UABQ3 1:02 4th & 3 at USF 39, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at SJSUQ4 2:09 4th & 9 at USF 23, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs UABQ2 1:58 4th & 2 at USF 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs MIAQ2 14:14 4th & 3 at MIA 33, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs NAVYQ2 8:47 4th & 1 at USF 24, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs MEMQ4 8:40 4th & 8 at MEM 27, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

70th of 134 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

   BCU
2. L

   ALA
3. W

   USM
4. L

   MIA
5. L

   TULN
6. L

   MEM
7. W

   UAB
8. W

   FAU
9. L

   NAVY
10. W

    CLT
11. W

    TLSA
12. L

    RICE
13. W

    SJSU

What moved it, 2024

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+0.01
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.17
• Timeouts+0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.62

Game by game

• BCUW 48-3 vs BCU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• ALAL 16-42 at ALA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• USMW 49-24 at USM84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• MIAL 15-50 vs MIA13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• TULNL 10-45 at TULN44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42
• MEML 3-21 vs MEM27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• UABW 35-25 vs UAB85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• FAUW 44-21 at FAU64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• NAVYL 7-28 vs NAVY50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• CLTW 59-24 at CLT50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• TLSAW 63-30 vs TLSA86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• RICEL 28-35 at RICE71% → 12%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position −2
• SJSUW 41-39 at SJSU63% → 50%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −13: Timeouts +25, Clock −16

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.