Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1666th
  Defense+0.1919th
• 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.
  Offense42.9%44th
  Defense50.2%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3191st
  Defense+1.0988th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1578th
  Defense+0.1612th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1844th
  Defense+0.2622nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%51st
  Defense55.7%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.1%43rd
  Defense36.3%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0566th
  Defense3.442nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.9%86th
  Defense15.8%13th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.5%72nd
  Defense16.7%12th

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, 2019

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
   HAW
2. W
   NAU
3. W
   TTU
4. W
   UCLA
5. W
   COLO
6. L
   WASH
7. L
   USC
8. L
   STAN
9. L
   ORST
10. L
    ORE
11. L
    UTAH
12. L
    ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2019

1. Khalil TateQB295 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 62nd of 228 QBs
   1.23WAR0.73 to 1.77
2. J.J. TaylorRB151 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 81st of 349 RBs
   0.44WAR0.34 to 0.56
3. Grant GunnellQB95 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 150th of 228 QBs
   0.36WAR0.23 to 0.49
4. Gary BrightwellRB59 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 199th of 349 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.24
5. Lucas HavrisikPK15 plays · +0.321 pts/play · 83rd of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Tayvian CunninghamWR34 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 300th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. BJ CasteelWR39 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 311th of 439 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. Cedric PetersonWR19 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 360th of 439 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57057063rd of 130Roster talent: 570, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18218251st of 130Recruiting: 182, 51st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%69th of 130Returning production: 58%, 69th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.0−8.0100th of 130SP+ rating: −8.0, 100th 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, 2019

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 0.06 of the 0.09 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 TTUQ3 8:50 4th & 1 at ARIZ 40, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. at COLOQ3 11:46 4th & 2 at ARIZ 46, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs UCLAQ2 1:11 4th & 1 at ARIZ 30, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs WASHQ2 12:59 4th & 2 at WASH 32, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at STANQ4 4:03 4th & 13 at STAN 49, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs UCLAQ2 14:55 4th & 2 at UCLA 16, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at COLOQ2 6:58 4th & 2 at ARIZ 12, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ASUQ1 4:24 4th & 1 at ARIZ 16, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

99th 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

   HAW
2. W

   NAU
3. W

   TTU
4. W

   UCLA
5. W

   COLO
6. L

   WASH
7. L

   USC
8. L

   STAN
9. L

   ORST
10. L

    ORE
11. L

    UTAH
12. L

    ASU

What moved it, 2019

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−0.96
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.07

Game by game

• HAWL 38-45 at HAW77% → 13%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +4
• NAUW 65-41 vs NAU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• TTUW 28-14 vs TTU44% → 99%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• UCLAW 20-17 vs UCLA62% → 95%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• COLOW 35-30 at COLO41% → 95%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• WASHL 27-51 vs WASH34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• USCL 14-41 at USC22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25, Clock +1
• STANL 31-41 at STAN41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• ORSTL 38-56 vs ORST62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, Clock −2
• OREL 6-34 at ORE4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• UTAHL 7-35 vs UTAH6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• ASUL 14-24 at ASU19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1

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.