UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0924th
  Defense+0.0294th
• 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.
  Offense42.0%42nd
  Defense39.4%79th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1117th
  Defense+1.1084th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.084th
  Defense−0.0288th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2768th
  Defense+0.0791st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%34th
  Defense44.0%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%52nd
  Defense30.6%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.366th
  Defense2.2698th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.2%6th
  Defense30.9%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%30th
  Defense2.8%84th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 UCF 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
   PSU
2. L
   MIZ
3. W
   BCU
4. W
   HOU
5. W
   BYU
6. W
   TULN
7. W
   TEM
8. L
   CONN
9. W
   TLSA
10. W
    SMU
11. W
    USF
12. W
    ECU
13. L
    NCSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2014

1. Justin HolmanQB389 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 38th of 199 QBs
   1.85WAR1.27 to 2.43
2. Breshad PerrimanWR68 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 18th of 469 WRs
   0.33WAR0.21 to 0.47
3. Josh ReeseWR48 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 49th of 469 WRs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.31
4. William StanbackRB180 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 100th of 350 RBs
   0.23WAR0.09 to 0.35
5. Caleb HoustonP46 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 21st of 94 punters
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.24
6. Shawn MoffittPK20 plays · +0.366 pts/play · 29th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
7. J.J. WortonWR43 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 160th of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
8. Dontravious WilsonRB67 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 199th of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15

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 UCF'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 UCF's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.15 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 ECUQ4 11:46 4th & 1 at UCF 15, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at HOUQ2 12:07 4th & 1 at UCF 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at HOUQ3 8:25 4th & 2 at HOU 25, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs BYUQ2 10:27 4th & 3 at UCF 9, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at ECUQ4 1:47 4th & 20 at UCF 15, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs BYUQ1 1:23 4th & 4 at BYU 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs NCSUQ4 4:32 4th & 10 at UCF 33, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs BYUQ4 6:11 4th & 5 at BYU 29, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

42nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up UCF's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   PSU
2. L

   MIZ
3. W

   BCU
4. W

   HOU
5. W

   BYU
6. W

   TULN
7. W

   TEM
8. L

   CONN
9. W

   TLSA
10. W

    SMU
11. W

    USF
12. W

    ECU
13. L

    NCSU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at UCF'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+0.75
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.40

Game by game

• PSUL 24-26 vs PSU51% → 4%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• MIZL 10-38 at MIZ24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26
• BCUW 41-7 vs BCU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• HOUW 17-12 at HOU39% → 94%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, Clock +4
• BYUW 31-24 vs BYU57% → 89%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −17
• TULNW 20-13 vs TULN89% → 96%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• TEMW 34-14 vs TEM75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• CONNL 29-37 at CONN78% → 3%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2
• TLSAW 31-7 vs TLSA89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16
• SMUW 53-7 vs SMU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• USFW 16-0 at USF70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• ECUW 32-30 at ECU30% → 94%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• NCSUL 27-34 vs NCSU58% → 4%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from UCF's side.

Closest call

UCF 32-30 ECU (2014) - UCF dropped to a 5.0% win probability before pulling it out.