UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1458th
  Defense+0.1145th
• 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.
  Offense46.1%81st
  Defense39.9%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2750th
  Defense+1.3227th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2695th
  Defense+0.0559th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0112th
  Defense+0.1844th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.5%83rd
  Defense45.2%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%61st
  Defense30.4%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6299th
  Defense2.5791st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.7%92nd
  Defense22.2%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%68th
  Defense16.3%52nd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UNH
2. W
   SHSU
3. W
   TCU
4. L
   COLO
5. L
   FLA
6. L
   CIN
7. L
   ISU
8. L
   BYU
9. W
   ARIZ
10. L
    ASU
11. L
    WVU
12. L
    UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2024

1. RJ HarveyRB182 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 12th of 373 RBs
   0.59WAR0.42 to 0.74
2. Jacurri BrownQB94 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 133rd of 232 QBs
   0.47WAR0.29 to 0.66
3. KJ JeffersonQB87 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 147th of 232 QBs
   0.34WAR0.19 to 0.48
4. Dylan RizkQB110 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 165th of 232 QBs
   0.25WAR0.06 to 0.45
5. Kobe HudsonWR39 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 66th of 452 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
6. Myles MontgomeryRB34 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 249th of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
7. Jacoby JonesWR20 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 184th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Randy PittmanTE18 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 91st of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74674632nd of 131Roster talent: 746, 32nd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19319345th of 131Recruiting: 193, 45th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%75th of 130Returning production: 40%, 75th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.8+2.859th of 131SP+ rating: +2.8, 59th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.12 of the 0.16 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 ASUQ4 9:33 4th & 2 at ASU 29, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at TCUQ4 5:05 4th & 5 at UCF 43, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. vs CINQ4 11:14 4th & 3 at UCF 8, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at ISUQ4 1:54 4th & 6 at ISU 42, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs UTAHQ4 12:31 4th & 8 at UTAH 27, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. vs UTAHQ4 4:30 4th & 9 at UTAH 39, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
7. at FLAQ2 0:56 4th & 9 at FLA 34, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs CINQ2 1:52 4th & 4 at CIN 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

133rd of 134 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

   UNH
2. W

   SHSU
3. W

   TCU
4. L

   COLO
5. L

   FLA
6. L

   CIN
7. L

   ISU
8. L

   BYU
9. W

   ARIZ
10. L

    ASU
11. L

    WVU
12. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2024

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−2.90
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.20

Game by game

• UNHW 57-3 vs UNH99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SHSUW 45-14 vs SHSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• TCUW 35-34 at TCU42% → 65%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• COLOL 21-48 vs COLO79% → 0%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −68, Clock −2
• FLAL 13-24 at FLA47% → 4%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position +1
• CINL 13-19 vs CIN58% → 19%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• ISUL 35-38 at ISU17% → 10%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +8
• BYUL 24-37 vs BYU55% → 1%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• ARIZW 56-12 vs ARIZ66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +35
• ASUL 31-35 at ASU41% → 9%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• WVUL 21-31 at WVU53% → 1%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −1
• UTAHL 14-28 vs UTAH76% → 2%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −60, 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.