UCF

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0728th
  Defense0.0074th
• 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.
  Offense40.2%28th
  Defense40.6%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2550th
  Defense+1.1190th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0225th
  Defense−0.1087th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1533rd
  Defense+0.1456th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.4%17th
  Defense46.9%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%43rd
  Defense27.1%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6413th
  Defense2.5088th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%22nd
  Defense19.1%52nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%49th
  Defense15.1%38th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   BCU
2. L
   PITT
3. W
   GAST
4. W
   TCU
5. L
   HOU
6. L
   OKST

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCF.

Players, 2026

1. Duke WatsonRB71 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 41st of 320 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
2. Keyone JenkinsQB126 plays · +0.045 pts/play · 131st of 192 QBs
   0.11WAR−0.13 to 0.33
3. Josh DerryWR32 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 31st of 364 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
4. Alonza Barnett IIIQB43 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 145th of 192 QBs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
5. Waden CharlesWR18 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 177th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Caden PieningTE11 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 51st of 164 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Dylan WadeTE11 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 62nd of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
8. Atticus BertramsP19 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 42nd of 84 punters
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67267266th of 138Roster talent: 672, 66th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419458th of 138Recruiting: 194, 58th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  25%25%92nd of 136Returning production: 25%, 92nd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.1+4.157th of 138SP+ rating so far: +4.1, 57th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.07 of the 0.09 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 GASTQ4 8:42 4th & 1 at GAST 6, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. vs TCUQ4 5:30 4th & 1 at UCF 41, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at PITTQ4 1:23 4th & 4 at UCF 28, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
4. vs TCUQ1 1:08 4th & 1 at UCF 19, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at HOUQ2 1:36 4th & 2 at HOU 12, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at HOUQ4 8:13 4th & 3 at UCF 32, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at OKSTQ4 5:56 4th & 3 at OKST 29, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at HOUQ2 9:03 4th & 4 at UCF 9, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

68th of 138 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

   BCU
2. L

   PITT
3. W

   GAST
4. W

   TCU
5. L

   HOU
6. L

   OKST

What moved it, 2026

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+0.39
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• BCUW 73-6 vs BCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• PITTL 7-12 at PITT28% → 75%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• GASTW 44-30 vs GAST86% → 98%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19
• TCUW 21-13 vs TCU40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• HOUL 17-27 at HOU19% → 3%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• OKSTL 28-42 at OKST26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, 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.