UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.042nd
  Defense−0.1198th
• 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.
  Offense35.8%1st
  Defense36.3%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2572nd
  Defense+1.1857th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.039th
  Defense−0.0793rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.048th
  Defense−0.1499th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.8%4th
  Defense42.5%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.
  Offense26.0%2nd
  Defense25.0%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.231st
  Defense2.5680th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense28.3%1st
  Defense22.2%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.1%11th
  Defense21.2%94th

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, 2016

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. W
   SCST
2. L
   MICH
3. L
   MD
4. W
   FIU
5. W
   ECU
6. L
   TEM
7. W
   CONN
8. L
   HOU
9. W
   TULN
10. W
    CIN
11. L
    TLSA
12. L
    USF
13. L
    ARST

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2016

1. McKenzie MiltonQB364 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 81st of 218 QBs
   1.05WAR0.38 to 1.66
2. Dontravious WilsonRB105 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 105th of 347 RBs
   0.34WAR0.24 to 0.43
3. Caleb HoustonP53 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 4th of 82 punters
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.38
4. Tre'Quan SmithWR73 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 62nd of 417 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.31
5. Jawon HamiltonRB106 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 218th of 347 RBs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.25
6. Justin HolmanQB39 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 186th of 218 QBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Matthew WrightPK13 plays · +0.417 pts/play · 53rd of 116 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
8. Taylor OldhamWR37 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 271st of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  51051069th of 128Roster talent: 510, 69th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16116168th of 128Recruiting: 161, 68th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  109%109%1st of 128Returning production: 109%, 1st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.2−2.276th of 128SP+ rating: −2.2, 76th 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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. vs TLSAQ3 8:32 4th & 1 at UCF 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at FIUQ2 10:42 4th & 2 at FIU 2, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at ECUQ4 5:17 4th & 3 at ECU 33, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at ECUQ4 3:48 4th & 1 at ECU 1, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs TEMQ2 11:32 4th & 13 at TEM 36, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs CINQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at CIN 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs CINQ2 3:50 4th & 8 at UCF 42, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs ARSTQ3 11:34 4th & 3 at UCF 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

80th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   SCST
2. L

   MICH
3. L

   MD
4. W

   FIU
5. W

   ECU
6. L

   TEM
7. W

   CONN
8. L

   HOU
9. W

   TULN
10. W

    CIN
11. L

    TLSA
12. L

    USF
13. L

    ARST

What moved it, 2016

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−0.35
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.15

Game by game

• SCSTW 38-0 vs SCST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MICHL 14-51 at MICH2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• MDL 24-30 vs MD28% → 10%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −14
• FIUW 53-14 at FIU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• ECUW 47-29 at ECU42% → 97%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +56, Clock +7
• TEML 25-26 vs TEM55% → 8%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −51, Clock −2
• CONNW 24-16 at CONN58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• HOUL 24-31 at HOU21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• TULNW 37-6 vs TULN89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +13
• CINW 24-3 vs CIN78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25
• TLSAL 20-35 vs TLSA59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• ARSTL 13-31 vs ARST43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2

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.