Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1975th
  Defense+0.282nd
• 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.
  Offense47.7%87th
  Defense53.6%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3688th
  Defense+1.1189th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1262nd
  Defense+0.238th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3787th
  Defense+0.389th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.4%83rd
  Defense58.2%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.
  Offense36.0%87th
  Defense40.0%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3080th
  Defense3.661st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%36th
  Defense14.5%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%47th
  Defense13.0%10th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2022

1. Jayden de LauraQB413 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 61st of 234 QBs
   1.25WAR0.58 to 1.94
2. Jacob CowingWR76 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 2nd of 455 WRs
   0.42WAR0.27 to 0.57
3. Michael WileyRB127 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 60th of 384 RBs
   0.39WAR0.27 to 0.50
4. Dorian SingerWR59 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 31st of 455 WRs
   0.26WAR0.14 to 0.38
5. DJ WilliamsRB60 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 180th of 384 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.22
6. Tetairoa McMillanWR30 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 140th of 455 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
7. Tanner McLachlanTE32 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 19th of 214 TEs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. Tyler LoopPK17 plays · +0.391 pts/play · 11th of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65265248th of 129Roster talent: 652, 48th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18418457th of 129Recruiting: 184, 57th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%70th of 128Returning production: 56%, 70th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.2−3.277th of 129SP+ rating: −3.2, 77th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.06 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 MSSTQ4 12:06 4th & 15 at MSST 36, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs COLOQ3 1:22 4th & 2 at COLO 12, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at UCLAQ4 6:34 4th & 4 at UCLA 17, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at UTAHQ3 9:20 4th & 1 at ARIZ 11, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at UCLAQ3 8:18 4th & 4 at UCLA 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs WSUQ3 4:09 4th & 13 at WSU 49, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at UTAHQ2 14:02 4th & 20 at UTAH 34, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs WSUQ3 9:30 4th & 4 at ARIZ 46, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

54th of 131 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

   SDSU
2. L

   MSST
3. W

   NDSU
4. L

   CAL
5. W

   COLO
6. L

   ORE
7. L

   WASH
8. L

   USC
9. L

   UTAH
10. W

    UCLA
11. L

    WSU
12. W

    ASU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.52
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.69

Game by game

• SDSUW 38-20 at SDSU40% → 98%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +57, Clock +2
• MSSTL 17-39 vs MSST23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• NDSUW 31-28 vs NDSU52% → 89%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• CALL 31-49 at CAL48% → 1%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1
• COLOW 43-20 vs COLO89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• OREL 22-49 vs ORE24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• WASHL 39-49 at WASH19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• USCL 37-45 vs USC25% → 3%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• UTAHL 20-45 at UTAH13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• UCLAW 34-28 at UCLA11% → 89%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4
• WSUL 20-31 vs WSU50% → 3%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• ASUW 38-35 vs ASU73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2

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.