Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1876th
  Defense+0.1726th
• 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.
  Offense43.3%46th
  Defense41.7%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2879th
  Defense+1.3017th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0955th
  Defense+0.0845th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2978th
  Defense+0.2720th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.8%33rd
  Defense45.3%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.4%68th
  Defense34.7%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1683rd
  Defense2.7864th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%78th
  Defense22.7%78th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.5%99th
  Defense15.4%34th

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, 2018

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. L
   HOU
3. W
   SUU
4. W
   ORST
5. L
   USC
6. W
   CAL
7. L
   UTAH
8. L
   UCLA
9. W
   ORE
10. W
    COLO
11. L
    WSU
12. L
    ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2018

1. Khalil TateQB288 plays · +0.308 pts/play · 40th of 225 QBs
   1.66WAR1.24 to 2.09
2. J.J. TaylorRB219 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 29th of 351 RBs
   0.65WAR0.48 to 0.85
3. Gary BrightwellRB68 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 182nd of 351 RBs
   0.24WAR0.19 to 0.30
4. Shawn PoindexterWR55 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 95th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
5. Rhett RodriguezQB38 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 200th of 225 QBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Shun BrownWR53 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 140th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
7. Tony EllisonWR31 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 174th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. Josh PollackPK14 plays · +0.385 pts/play · 56th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58158150th of 130Roster talent: 581, 50th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18318349th of 130Recruiting: 183, 49th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%44th of 129Returning production: 74%, 44th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.6+3.657th of 130SP+ rating: +3.6, 57th of 130 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.20 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 CALQ4 5:19 4th & 1 at ARIZ 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.4 pts
2. vs CALQ3 7:52 4th & 1 at ARIZ 17, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs CALQ4 7:05 4th & 4 at CAL 22, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs CALQ2 8:10 4th & 1 at ARIZ 15, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs ASUQ4 13:05 4th & 1 at ARIZ 45, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs USCQ4 6:16 4th & 17 at USC 46, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
7. at UCLAQ2 11:19 4th & 3 at UCLA 40, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at HOUQ1 5:55 4th & 1 at ARIZ 29, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

87th 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. L

   BYU
2. L

   HOU
3. W

   SUU
4. W

   ORST
5. L

   USC
6. W

   CAL
7. L

   UTAH
8. L

   UCLA
9. W

   ORE
10. W

    COLO
11. L

    WSU
12. L

    ASU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.74
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.38

Game by game

• BYUL 23-28 vs BYU76% → 6%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• HOUL 18-45 at HOU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position +1
• SUUW 62-31 vs SUU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• ORSTW 35-14 at ORST66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• USCL 20-24 vs USC42% → 5%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• CALW 24-17 vs CAL43% → 97%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2
• UTAHL 10-42 at UTAH18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20
• UCLAL 30-31 at UCLA26% → 10%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• OREW 44-15 vs ORE26% → 100%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +61, Possession & field position −1
• COLOW 42-34 vs COLO59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• WSUL 28-69 at WSU24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27
• ASUL 40-41 vs ASU45% → 10%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −45, 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.