Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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−0.094th
  Defense+0.2315th
• 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.
  Offense37.1%10th
  Defense46.6%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1617th
  Defense+1.2839th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0320th
  Defense+0.1719th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.153rd
  Defense+0.3411th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.0%12th
  Defense50.9%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.3%25th
  Defense34.6%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9661st
  Defense2.8360th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%25th
  Defense21.2%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%24th
  Defense11.6%3rd

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   USC
2. L
   WASH
3. L
   UCLA
4. L
   COLO
5. L
   ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2020

1. Gary BrightwellRB93 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 108th of 338 RBs
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.35
2. Grant GunnellQB85 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 127th of 212 QBs
   0.20WAR0.05 to 0.34
3. Michael WileyRB36 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 247th of 338 RBs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.13
4. Will PlummerQB86 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 168th of 212 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.04 to 0.21
5. Stanley Berryhill IIIWR20 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 246th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
6. Jamarye JoinerWR11 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 320th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
7. BJ CasteelWR13 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 356th of 409 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Lucas HavrisikPK7 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 73rd of 97 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52652672nd of 127Roster talent: 526, 72nd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917958th of 127Recruiting: 179, 58th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%61st of 127Returning production: 64%, 61st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.5−3.585th of 127SP+ rating: −3.5, 85th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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 USCQ4 7:49 4th & 2 at USC 33, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
2. vs USCQ2 5:07 4th & 2 at USC 6, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs COLOQ4 6:13 4th & 5 at COLO 5, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. at UCLAQ4 15:00 4th & 7 at UCLA 7, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at UCLAQ3 1:15 4th & 4 at UCLA 8, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs ASUQ2 0:17 4th & 2 at ASU 33, down 35Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs COLOQ2 1:21 4th & 7 at midfield, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs COLOQ4 1:22 4th & 12 at ARIZ 35, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

105th of 127 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

   USC
2. L

   WASH
3. L

   UCLA
4. L

   COLO
5. L

   ASU

What moved it, 2020

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−1.44
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.58

Game by game

• USCL 30-34 vs USC15% → 14%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −25, Clock −2
• WASHL 27-44 at WASH20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• UCLAL 10-27 at UCLA26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• COLOL 13-24 vs COLO27% → 3%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• ASUL 7-70 vs ASU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −32, Clock −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.