Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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.
  Offense0.004th
  Defense+0.2023rd
• 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.
  Offense39.0%17th
  Defense42.2%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.145th
  Defense+1.3422nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0625th
  Defense+0.1629th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.015th
  Defense+0.3022nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%28th
  Defense47.0%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.5%7th
  Defense32.1%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8523rd
  Defense3.1238th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%29th
  Defense16.9%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%34th
  Defense16.8%53rd

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, 2021

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
   SDSU
3. L
   NAU
4. L
   ORE
5. L
   UCLA
6. L
   COLO
7. L
   WASH
8. L
   USC
9. W
   CAL
10. L
    UTAH
11. L
    WSU
12. L
    ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2021

1. Will PlummerQB203 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 121st of 219 QBs
   0.54WAR0.19 to 0.89
2. Michael WileyRB95 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 158th of 387 RBs
   0.29WAR0.21 to 0.38
3. Gunner CruzQB95 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 165th of 219 QBs
   0.28WAR0.14 to 0.45
4. Stanley Berryhill IIIWR69 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 50th of 474 WRs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.28
5. Jordan McCloudQB54 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 174th of 219 QBs
   0.22WAR0.10 to 0.34
6. Drake AndersonRB62 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 225th of 387 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.24
7. Kyle OstendorpP41 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 18th of 101 punters
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
8. Jalen JohnRB44 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 258th of 387 RBs
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.17

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56856868th of 130Roster talent: 568, 68th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17217266th of 130Recruiting: 172, 66th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%106th of 128Returning production: 48%, 106th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.6−12.6112th of 130SP+ rating: −12.6, 112th 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, 2021

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 0.13 of the 0.19 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 WASHQ4 10:01 4th & 1 at ARIZ 34, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. vs BYUQ2 4:32 4th & 1 at BYU 14, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at USCQ4 6:04 4th & 8 at USC 8, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs WASHQ3 13:02 4th & 1 at ARIZ 34, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs CALQ4 11:43 4th & 3 at ARIZ 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs BYUQ4 0:49 4th & 5 at BYU 19, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs UTAHQ4 11:31 4th & 4 at UTAH 4, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at COLOQ3 10:39 4th & 2 at ARIZ 44, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

114th 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

   SDSU
3. L

   NAU
4. L

   ORE
5. L

   UCLA
6. L

   COLO
7. L

   WASH
8. L

   USC
9. W

   CAL
10. L

    UTAH
11. L

    WSU
12. L

    ASU

What moved it, 2021

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−2.34
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.80

Game by game

• BYUL 16-24 vs BYU18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −29, Clock −2
• SDSUL 14-38 vs SDSU51% → 1%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −54, Clock −1
• NAUL 19-21 vs NAU95% → 2%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −94: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• OREL 19-41 at ORE3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −6
• UCLAL 16-34 vs UCLA12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• COLOL 0-34 at COLO32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33
• WASHL 16-21 vs WASH11% → 10%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• USCL 34-41 at USC6% → 3%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• CALW 10-3 vs CAL25% → 97%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• UTAHL 29-38 vs UTAH7% → 3%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• WSUL 18-44 at WSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• ASUL 15-38 at ASU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11

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.