Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1961st
  Defense+0.1639th
• 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.
  Offense42.0%44th
  Defense43.0%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2674th
  Defense+1.2050th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1672nd
  Defense+0.0273rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2252nd
  Defense+0.3215th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%32nd
  Defense47.5%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%60th
  Defense32.9%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1276th
  Defense2.6971st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%72nd
  Defense20.4%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense1.4%13th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Arizona 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
   UNLV
2. W
   UTSA
3. W
   NEV
4. W
   CAL
5. W
   ORE
6. L
   USC
7. W
   WSU
8. L
   UCLA
9. W
   COLO
10. W
    WASH
11. W
    UTAH
12. W
    ASU
13. L
    ORE
14. L
    BOIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2014

1. Anu SolomonQB630 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 7th of 199 QBs
   2.55WAR1.68 to 3.56
2. Nick WilsonRB222 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 8th of 350 RBs
   0.67WAR0.47 to 0.86
3. Cayleb JonesWR113 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 23rd of 469 WRs
   0.32WAR0.13 to 0.51
4. Casey SkowronPK26 plays · +0.395 pts/play · 9th of 114 kickers
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
5. Terris Jones-GrigsbyRB122 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 123rd of 350 RBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
6. Samajie GrantWR55 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 94th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
7. Drew RigglemanP68 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 14th of 94 punters
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.26
8. Trey GriffeyWR38 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 120th of 469 WRs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.21

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 Arizona'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Arizona's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.27 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 UTSAQ4 2:10 4th & 1 at ARIZ 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it8.3 pts
2. at UTSAQ4 7:32 4th & 3 at ARIZ 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.8 pts
3. at UTSAQ4 0:23 4th & 4 at UTSA 30, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal2.5 pts
4. vs WASHQ4 9:15 4th & 4 at WASH 49, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.4 pts
5. vs BOISQ4 6:11 4th & 4 at BOIS 15, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
6. vs CALQ2 3:43 4th & 8 at CAL 26, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.6 pts
7. at UTSAQ4 13:17 4th & 2 at ARIZ 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
8. at UCLAQ4 2:00 4th & 9 at UCLA 9, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

12th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Arizona's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UNLV
2. W

   UTSA
3. W

   NEV
4. W

   CAL
5. W

   ORE
6. L

   USC
7. W

   WSU
8. L

   UCLA
9. W

   COLO
10. W

    WASH
11. W

    UTAH
12. W

    ASU
13. L

    ORE
14. L

    BOIS

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Arizona'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+1.72
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.10

Game by game

• UNLVW 58-13 vs UNLV93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• UTSAW 26-23 at UTSA77% → 84%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +2
• NEVW 35-28 vs NEV88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• CALW 49-45 vs CAL84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +21
• OREW 31-24 at ORE7% → 96%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• USCL 26-28 vs USC38% → 6%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• WSUW 59-37 at WSU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• UCLAL 7-17 at UCLA32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• COLOW 38-20 vs COLO85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• WASHW 27-26 vs WASH75% → 92%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +26, Possession & field position −1
• UTAHW 42-10 at UTAH41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +59
• ASUW 42-35 vs ASU54% → 96%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• OREL 13-51 at ORE15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• BOISL 30-38 vs BOIS61% → 6%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Arizona's side.

Closest call

NIU 17-42 ARIZ (2026) - Arizona dropped to a 1.4% win probability before pulling it out.