UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2059th
  Defense+0.0979th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%48th
  Defense40.4%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3063rd
  Defense+1.2368th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2486th
  Defense+0.1436th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1525th
  Defense+0.0591st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%47th
  Defense45.7%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.2%71st
  Defense29.7%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2167th
  Defense2.9657th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%53rd
  Defense19.4%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%52nd
  Defense19.0%84th

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, 2021

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
   BOIS
2. W
   BCU
3. L
   LOU
4. L
   NAVY
5. W
   ECU
6. L
   CIN
7. W
   MEM
8. W
   TEM
9. W
   TULN
10. L
    SMU
11. W
    CONN
12. W
    USF
13. W
    FLA

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2021

1. Mikey KeeneQB235 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 113th of 219 QBs
   0.65WAR0.24 to 1.06
2. Dillon GabrielQB88 plays · +0.265 pts/play · 143rd of 219 QBs
   0.44WAR0.24 to 0.63
3. Isaiah BowserRB133 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 146th of 387 RBs
   0.31WAR0.20 to 0.42
4. Johnny RichardsonRB93 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 147th of 387 RBs
   0.31WAR0.23 to 0.37
5. Ryan O'KeefeWR73 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 70th of 474 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.29
6. Andrew OsteenP54 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 10th of 101 punters
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.31
7. Brandon JohnsonWR29 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 195th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.09 to 0.15
8. Jaylon RobinsonWR16 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 345th of 474 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63963949th of 130Roster talent: 639, 49th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417465th of 130Recruiting: 174, 65th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%86th of 128Returning production: 63%, 86th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.8+4.862nd of 130SP+ rating: +4.8, 62nd 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, 2021

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 0.11 of the 0.13 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 FLAQ4 10:16 4th & 4 at FLA 38, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs USFQ4 2:43 4th & 9 at USF 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at NAVYQ4 0:34 4th & 15 at NAVY 17, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
4. at NAVYQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at NAVY 11, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at FLAQ3 3:04 4th & 4 at FLA 4, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at LOUQ4 11:05 4th & 6 at LOU 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs ECUQ2 7:15 4th & 2 at UCF 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at LOUQ4 7:24 4th & 5 at UCF 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

49th 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

   BOIS
2. W

   BCU
3. L

   LOU
4. L

   NAVY
5. W

   ECU
6. L

   CIN
7. W

   MEM
8. W

   TEM
9. W

   TULN
10. L

    SMU
11. W

    CONN
12. W

    USF
13. W

    FLA

What moved it, 2021

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+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.96

Game by game

• BOISW 36-31 vs BOIS64% → 89%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• BCUW 63-14 vs BCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• LOUL 35-42 at LOU66% → 14%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +1
• NAVYL 30-34 at NAVY87% → 4%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• ECUW 20-16 vs ECU73% → 89%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• CINL 21-56 at CIN8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• MEMW 24-7 vs MEM54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• TEMW 49-7 at TEM80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26
• TULNW 14-10 vs TULN80% → 87%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• SMUL 28-55 at SMU32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31
• CONNW 49-17 vs CONN97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• USFW 17-13 vs USF85% → 81%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −4: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position −3
• FLAW 29-17 at FLA30% → 98%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3

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.