Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1567th
  Defense−0.0187th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%54th
  Defense39.0%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2970th
  Defense+1.2067th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1367th
  Defense+0.0650th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1956th
  Defense+0.0389th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%50th
  Defense45.4%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.0%57th
  Defense25.7%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1070th
  Defense2.8556th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%48th
  Defense18.0%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%58th
  Defense20.2%97th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   HAW
2. W
   WEB
3. W
   KSU
4. L
   ISU
5. W
   OKST
6. L
   BYU
7. L
   HOU
8. W
   COLO
9. W
   KU
10. W
    CIN
11. W
    BAY
12. W
    ASU
13. L
    SMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2025

1. Noah FifitaQB423 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 49th of 231 QBs
   1.39WAR0.62 to 2.08
2. Kris HutsonWR85 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 34th of 451 WRs
   0.27WAR0.13 to 0.41
3. Ismail MahdiRB110 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 95th of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.29
4. Kedrick ReescanoRB72 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 198th of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
5. Tre SpiveyWR35 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 144th of 451 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.20
6. Michael Salgado-MedinaPK21 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 86th of 112 kickers
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
7. Sam OlsonTE18 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 94th of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
8. Cam BarmoreTE20 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 101st of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65265267th of 134Roster talent: 652, 67th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819845th of 134Recruiting: 198, 45th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%30th of 132Returning production: 56%, 30th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.0+12.028th of 134SP+ rating: +12.0, 28th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.08 of the 0.13 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 ASUQ2 0:01 4th & 1 at ASU 29, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. at CINQ2 0:04 4th & 1 at CIN 6, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. vs KSUQ2 0:00 4th & 9 at KSU 43, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
4. at ASUQ3 13:35 4th & 1 at ARIZ 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs BAYQ3 8:05 4th & 2 at ARIZ 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs KSUQ4 14:04 4th & 1 at ARIZ 49, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs OKSTQ3 10:25 4th & 3 at OKST 45, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at HOUQ1 2:09 4th & 2 at ARIZ 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

41st of 136 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

   HAW
2. W

   WEB
3. W

   KSU
4. L

   ISU
5. W

   OKST
6. L

   BYU
7. L

   HOU
8. W

   COLO
9. W

   KU
10. W

    CIN
11. W

    BAY
12. W

    ASU
13. L

    SMU

What moved it, 2025

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+1.90
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.48
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.29

Game by game

• HAWW 40-6 vs HAW86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• WEBW 48-3 vs WEB98% → 96%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +6
• KSUW 23-17 vs KSU45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +1
• ISUL 14-39 at ISU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• OKSTW 41-13 vs OKST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• BYUL 27-33 vs BYU45% → 88%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +33, Clock −4
• HOUL 28-31 at HOU54% → 36%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts +47
• COLOW 52-17 at COLO66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +39
• KUW 24-20 vs KU68% → 87%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +20, Possession & field position +2
• CINW 30-24 at CIN35% → 96%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• BAYW 41-17 vs BAY63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• ASUW 23-7 at ASU54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +5
• SMUL 19-24 at SMU43% → 5%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −34, 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.