UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.3096th
  Defense+0.0566th
• 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.
  Offense47.7%85th
  Defense41.3%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3592nd
  Defense+1.2147th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2798th
  Defense+0.0368th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3691st
  Defense+0.1258th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.3%62nd
  Defense43.7%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense44.1%98th
  Defense37.0%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4796th
  Defense2.9641st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%92nd
  Defense22.6%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.7%88th
  Defense19.2%86th

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, 2018

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
   CONN
2. W
   SCST
3. W
   FAU
4. W
   PITT
5. W
   SMU
6. W
   MEM
7. W
   ECU
8. W
   TEM
9. W
   NAVY
10. W
    CIN
11. W
    USF
12. W
    MEM
13. L
    LSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2018

1. McKenzie MiltonQB257 plays · +0.355 pts/play · 36th of 225 QBs
   1.71WAR1.35 to 2.15
2. D.J. Mack Jr.QB139 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 137th of 225 QBs
   0.52WAR0.27 to 0.80
3. Greg McCraeRB96 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 79th of 351 RBs
   0.42WAR0.34 to 0.50
4. Adrian Killins Jr.RB136 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 88th of 351 RBs
   0.41WAR0.29 to 0.52
5. Taj McGowanRB38 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 247th of 351 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.18
6. Gabriel DavisWR54 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 110th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
7. Dredrick SnelsonWR44 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
8. Otis AndersonRB49 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 266th of 351 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56856855th of 130Roster talent: 568, 55th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17017063rd of 130Recruiting: 170, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%33rd of 129Returning production: 78%, 33rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.5+16.518th of 130SP+ rating: +16.5, 18th of 130 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, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 USFQ4 11:50 4th & 1 at UCF 16, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. at USFQ2 11:00 4th & 2 at USF 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at USFQ2 0:21 4th & 6 at USF 37, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at ECUQ2 9:44 4th & 3 at ECU 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs PITTQ2 0:07 4th & 4 at PITT 4, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at USFQ3 12:14 4th & 5 at USF 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs CINQ3 13:43 4th & 5 at CIN 46, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs FAUQ1 4:45 4th & 3 at UCF 19, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

16th 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

   CONN
2. W

   SCST
3. W

   FAU
4. W

   PITT
5. W

   SMU
6. W

   MEM
7. W

   ECU
8. W

   TEM
9. W

   NAVY
10. W

    CIN
11. W

    USF
12. W

    MEM
13. L

    LSU

What moved it, 2018

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+1.98
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.55

Game by game

• CONNW 56-17 at CONN93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• SCSTW 38-0 vs SCST77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25
• FAUW 56-36 vs FAU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19
• PITTW 45-14 vs PITT84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• SMUW 48-20 vs SMU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• MEMW 31-30 at MEM69% → 79%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +31, Clock +3
• ECUW 37-10 at ECU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• TEMW 52-40 vs TEM80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• NAVYW 35-24 vs NAVY94% → 98%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +11
• CINW 38-13 vs CIN69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• USFW 38-10 at USF89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• MEMW 56-41 vs MEM63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• LSUL 32-40 vs LSU36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −41, 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.