UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.171st
  Defense+0.276th
• 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.
  Offense36.0%7th
  Defense46.3%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.055th
  Defense+1.349th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.231st
  Defense+0.1513th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.136th
  Defense+0.432nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.1%6th
  Defense49.4%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.7%19th
  Defense40.1%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.353rd
  Defense2.8451st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.8%6th
  Defense22.4%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%28th
  Defense1.9%47th

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, 2015

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
   FIU
2. L
   STAN
3. L
   FUR
4. L
   SC
5. L
   TULN
6. L
   CONN
7. L
   TEM
8. L
   HOU
9. L
   CIN
10. L
    TLSA
11. L
    ECU
12. L
    USF

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2015

1. Justin HolmanQB222 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 97th of 205 QBs
   0.98WAR0.68 to 1.28
2. Bo SchneiderQB80 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 166th of 205 QBs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.39
3. Tre'Quan SmithWR65 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 59th of 411 WRs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.33
4. Caleb HoustonP45 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 20th of 92 punters
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
5. C.J. JonesRB82 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 179th of 333 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Matthew WrightPK13 plays · +0.408 pts/play · 72nd of 115 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. Dontravious WilsonRB37 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 231st of 333 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Jordan AkinsWR17 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 331st of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48548573rd of 128Roster talent: 485, 73rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16016068th of 128Recruiting: 160, 68th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%100th of 127Returning production: 43%, 100th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.5−15.5113th of 128SP+ rating: −15.5, 113th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 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 TULNQ3 10:15 4th & 23 at TULN 32, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.7 pts
2. vs FIUQ3 8:37 4th & 1 at UCF 30, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs FIUQ4 12:44 4th & 6 at FIU 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs CONNQ3 11:47 4th & 2 at UCF 38, down 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at TLSAQ3 6:34 4th & 3 at TLSA 3, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at TEMQ4 6:46 4th & 6 at UCF 24, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at TLSAQ1 1:48 4th & 1 at TLSA 20, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs USFQ2 0:36 4th & 8 at USF 28, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

128th 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

   FIU
2. L

   STAN
3. L

   FUR
4. L

   SC
5. L

   TULN
6. L

   CONN
7. L

   TEM
8. L

   HOU
9. L

   CIN
10. L

    TLSA
11. L

    ECU
12. L

    USF

What moved it, 2015

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−3.23
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.38

Game by game

• FIUL 14-15 vs FIU86% → 10%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• STANL 7-31 at STAN12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• FURL 15-16 vs FUR96% → 19%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −28, Clock −3
• SCL 14-31 at SC20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• TULNL 31-45 at TULN57% → 2%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• CONNL 13-40 vs CONN63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• TEML 16-30 at TEM12% → 2%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• HOUL 10-59 vs HOU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• CINL 7-52 at CIN8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• TLSAL 30-45 at TLSA20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• ECUL 7-44 vs ECU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• USFL 3-44 vs USF8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13

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.