Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0939th
  Defense+0.2210th
• 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.
  Offense41.3%29th
  Defense46.3%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3291st
  Defense+1.2526th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1676th
  Defense+0.1620th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0015th
  Defense+0.2912th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%38th
  Defense49.4%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.7%10th
  Defense39.1%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0561st
  Defense3.259th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%63rd
  Defense15.9%12th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%43rd
  Defense14.5%21st

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, 2016

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. L
   BYU
2. W
   GRAM
3. W
   HAW
4. L
   WASH
5. L
   UCLA
6. L
   UTAH
7. L
   USC
8. L
   STAN
9. L
   WSU
10. L
    COLO
11. L
    ORST
12. W
    ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2016

1. Brandon DawkinsQB179 plays · +0.353 pts/play · 69th of 218 QBs
   1.18WAR0.84 to 1.56
2. Khalil TateQB51 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 177th of 218 QBs
   0.14WAR0.01 to 0.26
3. Samajie GrantWR61 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 248th of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.16
4. Anu SolomonQB35 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 202nd of 218 QBs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.13
5. Nate PhillipsWR29 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 330th of 417 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.10
6. Nick WilsonRB14 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 263rd of 347 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
7. Tyrell JohnsonWR23 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 389th of 417 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05
8. Josh KernTE2 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 104th of 195 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61661643rd of 128Roster talent: 616, 43rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19319341st of 128Recruiting: 193, 41st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%95th of 128Returning production: 53%, 95th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.5−4.587th of 128SP+ rating: −4.5, 87th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.07 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 ASUQ3 0:59 4th & 1 at ARIZ 28, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at UCLAQ3 2:53 4th & 3 at UCLA 3, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at UTAHQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at UTAH 46, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at UCLAQ2 10:32 4th & 2 at ARIZ 28, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs STANQ2 14:21 4th & 15 at STAN 35, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs STANQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at ARIZ 12, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs HAWQ4 4:21 4th & 2 at ARIZ 46, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs HAWQ2 15:00 4th & 3 at ARIZ 37, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

112th 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. Based on 10 of 12 games; 2 have no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   BYU
2. W

   GRAM
3. W

   HAW
4. L

   WASH
5. L

   UCLA
6. L

   UTAH
7. L

   USC
8. L

   STAN
9. L

   WSU
10. L

    COLO
11. L

    ORST
12. W

    ASU

What moved it, 2016

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−1.71
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.37

Game by game

• GRAMW 31-21 vs GRAM99% → 96%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +5
• HAWW 47-28 vs HAW93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• WASHL 28-35 vs WASH22% → 23%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −17
• UCLAL 24-45 at UCLA52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position −1
• UTAHL 23-36 at UTAH28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• USCL 14-48 vs USC29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• STANL 10-34 vs STAN57% → 0%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• WSUL 7-69 at WSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• ORSTL 17-42 at ORST37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• ASUW 56-35 vs ASU35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +54

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.