UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0630th
  Defense+0.0759th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%21st
  Defense43.7%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3895th
  Defense+1.1296th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0645th
  Defense+0.1033rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1025th
  Defense+0.0778th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.6%37th
  Defense51.8%10th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.3%7th
  Defense25.3%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.618th
  Defense3.0626th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.4%6th
  Defense16.1%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%22nd
  Defense16.4%60th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   JXST
2. W
   NCAT
3. W
   UNC
4. L
   KSU
5. L
   KU
6. L
   CIN
7. W
   WVU
8. L
   BAY
9. L
   HOU
10. L
    TTU
11. W
    OKST
12. L
    BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2025

1. Tayven JacksonQB260 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 75th of 231 QBs
   1.16WAR0.64 to 1.59
2. Myles MontgomeryRB143 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 78th of 365 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.33
3. Cam FancherQB77 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 169th of 231 QBs
   0.20WAR0.05 to 0.34
4. Dylan WadeTE47 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 26th of 213 TEs
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.21
5. Jaden NixonRB60 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 228th of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Noe RuelasPK12 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 49th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Duane Thomas Jr.WR63 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 212th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.16
8. Jacurri BrownQB9 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 211th of 231 QBs
   0.04WAR0.00 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71071043rd of 134Roster talent: 710, 43rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19219253rd of 134Recruiting: 192, 53rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  10%10%125th of 132Returning production: 10%, 125th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.2−1.275th of 134SP+ rating: −1.2, 75th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.10 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 OKSTQ3 10:05 4th & 2 at UCF 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs HOUQ3 1:06 4th & 6 at HOU 36, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs UNCQ2 3:11 4th & 1 at UCF 17, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs WVUQ2 4:53 4th & 2 at WVU 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs JXSTQ2 1:45 4th & 4 at JXST 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs HOUQ2 14:01 4th & 2 at HOU 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at BAYQ4 11:36 4th & 6 at BAY 10, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at CINQ4 2:13 4th & 15 at CIN 18, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

94th of 136 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

   JXST
2. W

   NCAT
3. W

   UNC
4. L

   KSU
5. L

   KU
6. L

   CIN
7. W

   WVU
8. L

   BAY
9. L

   HOU
10. L

    TTU
11. W

    OKST
12. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.09
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.23
• Other+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.21

Game by game

• JXSTW 17-10 vs JXST90% → 94%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts −1
• NCATW 68-7 vs NCAT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• UNCW 34-9 vs UNC69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Clock −1
• KSUL 20-34 at KSU29% → 8%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts +26
• KUL 20-27 vs KU37% → 5%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• CINL 11-20 at CIN21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• WVUW 45-13 vs WVU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −1
• BAYL 3-30 at BAY32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +1
• HOUL 27-30 vs HOU46% → 6%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• TTUL 9-48 at TTU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• OKSTW 17-14 vs OKST81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• BYUL 21-41 at BYU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −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.