Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0935th
  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.
  Offense38.5%14th
  Defense44.6%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4698th
  Defense+1.3129th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0214th
  Defense+0.1331st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1746th
  Defense+0.2226th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.4%8th
  Defense50.0%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%49th
  Defense32.2%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.649th
  Defense3.3214th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.8%1st
  Defense15.3%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%54th
  Defense14.3%23rd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   UNM
2. W
   NAU
3. L
   KSU
4. W
   UTAH
5. L
   TTU
6. L
   BYU
7. L
   COLO
8. L
   WVU
9. L
   UCF
10. W
    HOU
11. L
    TCU
12. L
    ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2024

1. Noah FifitaQB333 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 65th of 232 QBs
   1.35WAR0.77 to 1.86
2. Tetairoa McMillanWR67 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 4th of 452 WRs
   0.37WAR0.19 to 0.53
3. Quali ConleyRB129 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 120th of 373 RBs
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.34
4. Tyler LoopPK18 plays · +0.477 pts/play · 4th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Sam OlsonTE11 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 64th of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
6. Keyan BurnettTE15 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 74th of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
7. Montana Lemonious-CraigWR10 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 339th of 452 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
8. Jacory Croskey-MerrittRB7 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 328th of 373 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67367356th of 131Roster talent: 673, 56th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18718754th of 131Recruiting: 187, 54th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%35th of 130Returning production: 62%, 35th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.8−2.880th of 131SP+ rating: −2.8, 80th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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. at BYUQ4 9:02 4th & 3 at BYU 3, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs HOUQ2 3:48 4th & 10 at HOU 11, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at UTAHQ2 10:03 4th & 2 at ARIZ 10, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs TTUQ1 0:22 4th & 3 at TTU 29, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at UCFQ2 8:00 4th & 4 at ARIZ 49, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs WVUQ2 1:49 4th & 2 at ARIZ 33, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at TCUQ2 8:08 4th & 8 at TCU 35, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs COLOQ2 8:43 4th & 8 at COLO 34, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

125th of 134 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

   UNM
2. W

   NAU
3. L

   KSU
4. W

   UTAH
5. L

   TTU
6. L

   BYU
7. L

   COLO
8. L

   WVU
9. L

   UCF
10. W

    HOU
11. L

    TCU
12. L

    ASU

What moved it, 2024

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−2.08
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.14

Game by game

• UNMW 61-39 vs UNM97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• NAUW 22-10 vs NAU99% → 98%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +4
• KSUL 7-31 at KSU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• UTAHW 23-10 at UTAH32% → 98%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• TTUL 22-28 vs TTU62% → 5%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• BYUL 19-41 at BYU40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −3
• COLOL 7-34 vs COLO55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −55, Clock −1
• WVUL 26-31 vs WVU59% → 6%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• UCFL 12-56 at UCF34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35
• HOUW 27-3 vs HOU51% → 100%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +46, Clock −1
• TCUL 28-49 at TCU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26
• ASUL 7-49 vs ASU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −36, 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.