UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.3093rd
  Defense+0.1347th
• 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.
  Offense48.7%87th
  Defense46.1%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2963rd
  Defense+1.2550th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1883rd
  Defense−0.0586th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4192nd
  Defense+0.3216th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.0%83rd
  Defense50.8%27th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.2%88th
  Defense36.1%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1980th
  Defense2.8458th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.9%83rd
  Defense21.4%69th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%81st
  Defense17.7%65th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   GT
2. W
   ECU
3. L
   TLSA
4. L
   MEM
5. W
   TULN
6. W
   HOU
7. W
   TEM
8. L
   CIN
9. W
   USF
10. L
    BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2020

1. Dillon GabrielQB362 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 13th of 212 QBs
   1.25WAR0.55 to 1.90
2. Greg McCraeRB120 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 48th of 338 RBs
   0.42WAR0.31 to 0.53
3. Otis AndersonRB109 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 58th of 338 RBs
   0.40WAR0.31 to 0.50
4. Marlon WilliamsWR70 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 13th of 409 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.32
5. Bentavious ThompsonRB44 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 206th of 338 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.19
6. Jaylon RobinsonWR62 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 47th of 409 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.24
7. Jacob HarrisWR33 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 161st of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Andrew OsteenP30 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 14th of 77 punters
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.10

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59359361st of 127Roster talent: 593, 61st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17517565th of 127Recruiting: 175, 65th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%35th of 127Returning production: 76%, 35th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.6+13.618th of 127SP+ rating: +13.6, 18th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.01 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. vs TLSAQ4 10:59 4th & 7 at TLSA 43, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at GTQ3 9:29 4th & 1 at UCF 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. at HOUQ3 10:20 4th & 3 at UCF 47, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs CINQ2 12:59 4th & 2 at UCF 38, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs TULNQ3 7:47 4th & 12 at TULN 35, up 16Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs TLSAQ2 8:31 4th & 4 at TLSA 4, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at ECUQ3 3:42 4th & 1 at UCF 15, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at MEMQ4 2:38 4th & 7 at UCF 44, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

111th of 127 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

   GT
2. W

   ECU
3. L

   TLSA
4. L

   MEM
5. W

   TULN
6. W

   HOU
7. W

   TEM
8. L

   CIN
9. W

   USF
10. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2020

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−0.28
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.78

Game by game

• GTW 49-21 at GT69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• ECUW 51-28 at ECU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10, Clock +1
• TLSAL 26-34 vs TLSA91% → 6%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• MEML 49-50 at MEM60% → 20%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position −1
• TULNW 51-34 vs TULN93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• HOUW 44-21 at HOU60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• TEMW 38-13 vs TEM96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• CINL 33-36 vs CIN39% → 6%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• USFW 58-46 at USF95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +14, Clock +1
• BYUL 23-49 at BYU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35

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.