UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2589th
  Defense+0.0955th
• 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.
  Offense44.9%71st
  Defense46.6%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4598th
  Defense+1.1392nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2191st
  Defense+0.1912th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4189th
  Defense+0.0791st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%57th
  Defense51.9%8th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%89th
  Defense33.6%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2974th
  Defense3.3812th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%24th
  Defense16.4%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%75th
  Defense11.9%2nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   KENT
2. W
   BOIS
3. W
   VILL
4. L
   KSU
5. L
   BAY
6. L
   KU
7. L
   OU
8. L
   WVU
9. W
   CIN
10. W
    OKST
11. L
    TTU
12. W
    HOU
13. L
    GT

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2023

1. John Rhys PlumleeQB283 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 90th of 250 QBs
   0.99WAR0.51 to 1.59
2. RJ HarveyRB167 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 12th of 383 RBs
   0.56WAR0.40 to 0.72
3. Kobe HudsonWR37 plays · +0.416 pts/play · 24th of 457 WRs
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.39
4. Javon BakerWR46 plays · +0.313 pts/play · 29th of 457 WRs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.40
5. Timmy McClainQB64 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 187th of 250 QBs
   0.19WAR0.06 to 0.33
6. Johnny RichardsonRB67 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 235th of 383 RBs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Colton BoomerPK18 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 65th of 113 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Mitch McCarthyP29 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 89th of 103 punters
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65465453rd of 130Roster talent: 654, 53rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18118161st of 130Recruiting: 181, 61st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%31st of 128Returning production: 68%, 31st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.4+3.456th of 130SP+ rating: +3.4, 56th 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, 2023

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 BOISQ3 2:02 4th & 2 at UCF 44, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs GTQ3 8:14 4th & 11 at GT 30, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
3. at OUQ3 0:46 4th & 4 at OU 49, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs GTQ4 2:44 4th & 4 at GT 16, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at OUQ4 1:16 4th & 10 at OU 12, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at KSUQ4 0:34 4th & 15 at KSU 30, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs HOUQ4 2:58 4th & 14 at HOU 33, up 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at OUQ2 4:01 4th & 4 at OU 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

123rd of 133 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

   KENT
2. W

   BOIS
3. W

   VILL
4. L

   KSU
5. L

   BAY
6. L

   KU
7. L

   OU
8. L

   WVU
9. W

   CIN
10. W

    OKST
11. L

    TTU
12. W

    HOU
13. L

    GT

What moved it, 2023

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−1.30
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.04
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.58

Game by game

• KENTW 56-6 vs KENT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• BOISW 18-16 at BOIS61% → 89%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• VILLW 48-14 vs VILL94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• KSUL 31-44 at KSU38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position +2
• BAYL 35-36 vs BAY76% → 21%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• KUL 22-51 at KU53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −48
• OUL 29-31 at OU12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• WVUL 28-41 vs WVU71% → 1%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• CINW 28-26 at CIN66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• OKSTW 45-3 vs OKST48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +49, Possession & field position −1
• TTUL 23-24 at TTU41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −3
• HOUW 27-13 vs HOU86% → 98%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19
• GTL 17-30 vs GT70% → 1%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −61, 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.