Percentile among the 138 FBS teams on each measure this season, offence and defence, both teams. Raw values, plays behind them and ranks are in the tables below.
What actually happens around a number like this
Each bar is how often a college game lands on that margin, from 7,877 FBS games 2015–2025, centred on our card line. The spread misses by 12.3 points on average (37% within a touchdown). UNT wins about 80% of the time at a number like ours.
UAB
Games
4
Plays per game
66.2
Drives per game
10.0
SP+
-14.3 (118th, offence 116th, defence 115th)
Returning production
80% (pass 100%, rush 63%, receiving 74%)
UNT
Games
4
Plays per game
72.8
Drives per game
11.2
SP+
-5.7 (91st, offence 47th, defence 120th)
Returning production
3% (pass 2%, rush 3%, receiving 2%)
What each side chooses to do
Offence
UAB
UNT
pass rate, all downs
41%118th
51%43rd
pass rate, standard downs
33%121st
48%23rd
pass rate, 1st down
31%123rd
45%52nd
no-huddle share
76%52nd
62%68th
pass rate, passing downs
60%86th
60%87th
pass rate, red zone
27%119th
46%29th
seconds per play (own drives)
30.047th
29.656th
choices, from CFBD play-by-play; a choice repeats within a season, a result mostly does not Rank 1 = highest rate / fastest among FBS.
UAB offence
UAB offence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.050
265
108 of 138
success rate
0.423
265
88 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.185
265
92 of 138
rush: points added per play
0.135
265
69 of 138
rush: success rate
0.437
265
82 of 138
rush: explosiveness
0.994
265
58 of 138
pass: points added per play
-0.009
265
127 of 138
pass: success rate
0.413
265
91 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.455
265
98 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.441
265
117 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.380
265
25 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
3.137
265
67 of 138
rushes stopped at or behind the line
0.159
265
58 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.739
265
75 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
2.889
265
126 of 138
havoc allowed (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.158
265
92 of 138
havoc allowed by the front seven
0.106
265
108 of 138
havoc allowed by the secondary
0.053
265
70 of 138
average starting field position (yards from own goal)
69.600
265
91 of 138
UNT offence
UNT offence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.319
291
17 of 138
success rate
0.505
291
20 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.280
291
48 of 138
rush: points added per play
0.188
291
41 of 138
rush: success rate
0.446
291
73 of 138
rush: explosiveness
1.058
291
33 of 138
pass: points added per play
0.467
291
21 of 138
pass: success rate
0.572
291
8 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.461
291
94 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.558
291
20 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.376
291
28 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
3.271
291
46 of 138
rushes stopped at or behind the line
0.165
291
64 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.750
291
69 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
4.419
291
38 of 138
havoc allowed (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.113
291
28 of 138
havoc allowed by the front seven
0.069
291
29 of 138
havoc allowed by the secondary
0.045
291
52 of 138
average starting field position (yards from own goal)
70.100
291
77 of 138
UAB defence
UAB defence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.053
249
73 of 138
success rate
0.450
249
116 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.044
249
14 of 138
rush: points added per play
0.093
249
93 of 138
rush: success rate
0.473
249
125 of 138
rush: explosiveness
0.942
249
78 of 138
pass: points added per play
-0.011
249
29 of 138
pass: success rate
0.403
249
72 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.275
249
7 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.531
249
130 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.250
249
42 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
3.430
249
132 of 138
rushes stopped (by this defence) at or behind the line
0.124
249
9 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.704
249
62 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
3.870
249
106 of 138
havoc created (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.157
249
61 of 138
havoc created by the front seven
0.120
249
109 of 138
havoc created by the secondary
0.036
249
10 of 138
opponent average starting field position
69.100
249
27 of 138
UNT defence
UNT defence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.119
254
92 of 138
success rate
0.445
254
113 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.226
254
69 of 138
rush: points added per play
-0.043
254
40 of 138
rush: success rate
0.412
254
77 of 138
rush: explosiveness
0.724
254
19 of 138
pass: points added per play
0.453
254
130 of 138
pass: success rate
0.505
254
131 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.846
254
129 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.481
254
93 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.352
254
122 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
2.483
254
29 of 138
rushes stopped (by this defence) at or behind the line
0.196
254
74 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.704
254
61 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
3.875
254
107 of 138
havoc created (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.150
254
51 of 138
havoc created by the front seven
0.106
254
82 of 138
havoc created by the secondary
0.043
254
25 of 138
opponent average starting field position
65.700
254
3 of 138
points added per play: CFBD predicted points added (their EPA); positive helps the offence · success rate: share of plays that gain 50% of needed yards on 1st, 70% on 2nd, 100% on 3rd/4th · explosiveness: average points added on the plays that succeeded - big-play size · havoc: tackles for loss, forced fumbles, interceptions and breakups as a share of plays · rank: 1 = best among FBS teams in the direction that helps that side · fei: bcftoys.com FEI: opponent-adjusted possession efficiency, offence/defence/special teams, with FBS rank - theirs · fplus: bcftoys.com F+: FEI and SP+ combined, in standard deviations above average - theirs