UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2592nd
  Defense−0.0395th
• 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.
  Offense45.0%62nd
  Defense36.9%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4199th
  Defense+1.1671st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2091st
  Defense−0.0585th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3184th
  Defense−0.0195th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%64th
  Defense42.6%88th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.7%74th
  Defense28.2%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7833rd
  Defense2.5981st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.2%29th
  Defense24.6%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%82nd
  Defense26.9%98th

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, 2019

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
   FAMU
2. W
   FAU
3. W
   STAN
4. L
   PITT
5. W
   CONN
6. L
   CIN
7. W
   ECU
8. W
   TEM
9. W
   HOU
10. L
    TLSA
11. W
    TULN
12. W
    USF
13. W
    MRSH

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2019

1. Dillon GabrielQB348 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 56th of 228 QBs
   1.28WAR0.59 to 1.93
2. Greg McCraeRB78 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 126th of 349 RBs
   0.34WAR0.26 to 0.42
3. Otis AndersonRB101 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 149th of 349 RBs
   0.29WAR0.21 to 0.36
4. Gabriel DavisWR76 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 40th of 439 WRs
   0.24WAR0.14 to 0.34
5. Adrian Killins Jr.RB67 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 188th of 349 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.27
6. Marlon WilliamsWR45 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 126th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.20
7. Tre NixonWR53 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 231st of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
8. D.J. Mack Jr.QB16 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 213th of 228 QBs
   0.07WAR0.03 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59959954th of 130Roster talent: 599, 54th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417462nd of 130Recruiting: 174, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%20th of 130Returning production: 81%, 20th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.1+19.114th of 130SP+ rating: +19.1, 14th 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, 2019

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 0.06 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 TULNQ4 5:21 4th & 16 at TULN 20, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
2. at PITTQ4 0:00 4th & 22 at UCF 13, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs STANQ2 7:37 4th & 4 at STAN 4, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs HOUQ4 11:54 4th & 2 at UCF 30, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs HOUQ4 1:42 4th & 3 at HOU 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs ECUQ4 3:12 4th & 16 at ECU 24, up 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at CINQ1 1:39 4th & 3 at UCF 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at MRSHQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at MRSH 19, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

102nd 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

   FAMU
2. W

   FAU
3. W

   STAN
4. L

   PITT
5. W

   CONN
6. L

   CIN
7. W

   ECU
8. W

   TEM
9. W

   HOU
10. L

    TLSA
11. W

    TULN
12. W

    USF
13. W

    MRSH

What moved it, 2019

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+0.61
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.53

Game by game

• FAMUW 62-0 vs FAMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• FAUW 48-14 at FAU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• STANW 45-27 vs STAN77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• PITTL 34-35 at PITT79% → 18%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −4
• CONNW 56-21 vs CONN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CINL 24-27 at CIN62% → 5%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• ECUW 41-28 vs ECU98% → 98%Before kickoff +48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +6
• TEMW 63-21 at TEM82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +24
• HOUW 44-29 vs HOU92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13
• TLSAL 31-34 at TLSA88% → 5%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• TULNW 34-31 at TULN72% → 95%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• USFW 34-7 vs USF94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• MRSHW 48-25 at MRSH86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1

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.