Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2592nd
  Defense+0.1628th
• 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.
  Offense46.5%81st
  Defense46.1%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3086th
  Defense+1.2534th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2898th
  Defense+0.1618th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2264th
  Defense+0.1839th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%86th
  Defense49.3%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.7%50th
  Defense38.4%10th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4596th
  Defense2.9538th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.3%96th
  Defense17.7%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.3%95th
  Defense14.9%31st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   NAU
2. L
   HOU
3. W
   UTEP
4. L
   UTAH
5. W
   COLO
6. W
   UCLA
7. W
   CAL
8. W
   WSU
9. L
   USC
10. W
    ORST
11. L
    ORE
12. L
    ASU
13. L
    PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2017

1. Khalil TateQB296 plays · +0.352 pts/play · 17th of 226 QBs
   1.95WAR1.26 to 2.56
2. Brandon DawkinsQB142 plays · +0.300 pts/play · 99th of 226 QBs
   0.80WAR0.51 to 1.06
3. J.J. TaylorRB132 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 72nd of 352 RBs
   0.36WAR0.26 to 0.47
4. Nick WilsonRB98 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 105th of 352 RBs
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.36
5. Shun BrownWR48 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 78th of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
6. Zach GreenRB38 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 223rd of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.16
7. Tony EllisonWR47 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 110th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
8. Josh PollackPK28 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 54th of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60760746th of 130Roster talent: 607, 46th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19219241st of 130Recruiting: 192, 41st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%40th of 128Returning production: 71%, 40th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.7+3.759th of 128SP+ rating: +3.7, 59th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 CALQ4 5:07 4th & 2 at CAL 19, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
2. at PURQ4 8:03 4th & 1 at ARIZ 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
3. at ASUQ3 14:46 4th & 1 at ARIZ 29, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs HOUQ3 1:48 4th & 4 at HOU 4, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at COLOQ4 8:06 4th & 4 at COLO 7, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at OREQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at ORE 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at PURQ4 14:54 4th & 2 at ARIZ 14, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at OREQ4 8:09 4th & 23 at ORE 36, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

75th of 130 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

   NAU
2. L

   HOU
3. W

   UTEP
4. L

   UTAH
5. W

   COLO
6. W

   UCLA
7. W

   CAL
8. W

   WSU
9. L

   USC
10. W

    ORST
11. L

    ORE
12. L

    ASU
13. L

    PUR

What moved it, 2017

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−1.08
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.14

Game by game

• NAUW 62-24 vs NAU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• HOUL 16-19 vs HOU51% → 5%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• UTEPW 63-16 at UTEP96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• UTAHL 24-30 vs UTAH38% → 5%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• COLOW 45-42 at COLO31% → 93%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• UCLAW 47-30 vs UCLA40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +2
• CALW 45-44 at CAL67% → 12%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts +24
• WSUW 58-37 vs WSU50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• USCL 35-49 at USC28% → 2%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• ORSTW 49-28 vs ORST91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• OREL 28-48 at ORE41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts +1
• ASUL 30-42 at ASU53% → 2%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• PURL 35-38 at PUR58% → 7%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −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.