UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.3199th
  Defense+0.0368th
• 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.
  Offense49.3%97th
  Defense38.0%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4098th
  Defense+1.411st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1683rd
  Defense−0.0481st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4999th
  Defense+0.1158th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.6%94th
  Defense41.4%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.9%94th
  Defense31.7%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7835th
  Defense2.7265th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.0%23rd
  Defense20.7%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.5%87th
  Defense16.9%56th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   FIU
2. W
   MD
3. W
   MEM
4. W
   CIN
5. W
   ECU
6. W
   NAVY
7. W
   APSU
8. W
   SMU
9. W
   CONN
10. W
    TEM
11. W
    USF
12. W
    MEM
13. W
    AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2017

1. McKenzie MiltonQB375 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 22nd of 226 QBs
   1.83WAR1.12 to 2.46
2. Adrian Killins Jr.RB119 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 103rd of 352 RBs
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.40
3. Otis AndersonRB86 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 159th of 352 RBs
   0.21WAR0.15 to 0.27
4. Tre'Quan SmithWR58 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 84th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
5. Dredrick SnelsonWR49 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 118th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Matthew WrightPK14 plays · +0.447 pts/play · 45th of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Jordan AkinsWR41 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 179th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. Jawon HamiltonRB11 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 285th of 352 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57257254th of 130Roster talent: 572, 54th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16516566th of 130Recruiting: 165, 66th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%57th of 128Returning production: 64%, 57th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.1+14.122nd of 128SP+ rating: +14.1, 22nd of 128 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.19 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 MEMQ4 2:35 4th & 2 at UCF 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.6 pts
2. at SMUQ4 14:18 4th & 2 at SMU 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. at MDQ4 12:34 4th & 2 at MD 2, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs USFQ3 3:41 4th & 1 at UCF 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at AUBQ4 6:58 4th & 3 at AUB 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at NAVYQ4 2:21 4th & 5 at NAVY 39, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs MEMQ2 8:29 4th & 2 at MEM 11, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at CINQ2 11:03 4th & 3 at CIN 30, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

1st of 130 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. W

   FIU
2. W

   MD
3. W

   MEM
4. W

   CIN
5. W

   ECU
6. W

   NAVY
7. W

   APSU
8. W

   SMU
9. W

   CONN
10. W

    TEM
11. W

    USF
12. W

    MEM
13. W

    AUB

What moved it, 2017

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+3.38
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.25
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.54

Game by game

• FIUW 61-17 vs FIU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• MDW 38-10 at MD39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• MEMW 40-13 vs MEM64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +37
• CINW 51-23 at CIN84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +23
• ECUW 63-21 vs ECU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• NAVYW 31-21 at NAVY79% → 95%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• APSUW 73-33 vs APSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SMUW 31-24 at SMU82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +29, Clock +2
• CONNW 49-24 vs CONN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TEMW 45-19 at TEM83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23
• USFW 49-42 vs USF75% → 96%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• MEMW 62-55 vs MEM65% → 80%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −20
• AUBW 34-27 at AUB24% → 95%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4

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.