UCLA

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1857th
  Defense+0.1169th
• 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.
  Offense46.1%76th
  Defense41.4%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1117th
  Defense+1.1279th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1876th
  Defense+0.0470th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1945th
  Defense+0.1857th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.2%81st
  Defense45.8%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.8%50th
  Defense32.8%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2384th
  Defense2.7464th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%47th
  Defense18.2%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.2%98th
  Defense1.4%13th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 UCLA 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
   UVA
2. W
   MEM
3. W
   TEX
4. W
   ASU
5. L
   UTAH
6. L
   ORE
7. W
   CAL
8. W
   COLO
9. W
   ARIZ
10. W
    WASH
11. W
    USC
12. L
    STAN
13. W
    KSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCLA.

Players, 2014

1. Brett HundleyQB465 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 12th of 199 QBs
   2.42WAR1.69 to 3.30
2. Paul PerkinsRB229 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 10th of 350 RBs
   0.61WAR0.42 to 0.81
3. Jordan PaytonWR79 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 39th of 469 WRs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.37
4. Ka'imi FairbairnPK17 plays · +0.425 pts/play · 30th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
5. Thomas DuarteWR29 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 163rd of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Devin LucienWR32 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 193rd of 469 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Devin FullerWR68 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 258th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.01 to 0.16
8. Eldridge MassingtonWR32 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 260th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12

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 UCLA'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 UCLA's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.28 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 TEXQ4 0:02 4th & 1 at TEX 31, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.0 pts
2. at TEXQ4 9:13 4th & 3 at TEX 7, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs ARIZQ2 6:58 4th & 1 at ARIZ 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. at TEXQ3 6:42 4th & 1 at UCLA 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. vs ARIZQ4 10:37 4th & 1 at UCLA 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. at WASHQ3 2:27 4th & 1 at WASH 19, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
7. at TEXQ3 10:13 4th & 1 at UCLA 33, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
8. at UVAQ3 5:22 4th & 3 at UVA 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

39th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up UCLA's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   UVA
2. W

   MEM
3. W

   TEX
4. W

   ASU
5. L

   UTAH
6. L

   ORE
7. W

   CAL
8. W

   COLO
9. W

   ARIZ
10. W

    WASH
11. W

    USC
12. L

    STAN
13. W

    KSU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at UCLA'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+1.32
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.12

Game by game

• UVAW 28-20 at UVA89% → 96%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• MEMW 42-35 vs MEM93% → 91%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• TEXW 20-17 at TEX68% → 94%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +39, Clock +3
• UTAHL 28-30 vs UTAH83% → 24%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −35, Clock −4
• OREL 30-42 vs ORE44% → 3%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• CALW 36-34 at CAL74% → 92%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• COLOW 40-37 at COLO84% → 88%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +11
• ARIZW 17-7 vs ARIZ68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• WASHW 44-30 at WASH71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• USCW 38-20 vs USC59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position +1
• STANL 10-31 vs STAN62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• KSUW 40-35 vs KSU49% → 92%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +5

Points of win probability, from UCLA's side.

Closest call

UCLA 67-63 WSU (2019) - UCLA dropped to a 0.4% win probability before pulling it out.