UCLA

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.
  Offense+0.2995th
  Defense+0.1544th
• 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.
  Offense48.6%90th
  Defense44.9%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2956th
  Defense+1.2367th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3095th
  Defense+0.1437th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2867th
  Defense+0.1571st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.9%86th
  Defense49.6%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.6%87th
  Defense33.5%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4087th
  Defense2.9261st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.5%71st
  Defense16.8%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.3%76th
  Defense16.9%55th

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 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
   HAW
2. W
   LSU
3. L
   FRES
4. W
   STAN
5. L
   ASU
6. W
   ARIZ
7. W
   WASH
8. L
   ORE
9. L
   UTAH
10. W
    COLO
11. W
    USC
12. W
    CAL

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCLA.

Players, 2021

1. Dorian Thompson-RobinsonQB378 plays · +0.331 pts/play · 19th of 219 QBs
   2.34WAR1.66 to 3.05
2. Zach CharbonnetRB216 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 13th of 387 RBs
   0.89WAR0.68 to 1.08
3. Brittain BrownRB108 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 79th of 387 RBs
   0.45WAR0.36 to 0.54
4. Kyle PhilipsWR57 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 94th of 474 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
5. Ethan GarbersQB47 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 186th of 219 QBs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
6. Greg DulcichTE48 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 1st of 234 TEs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
7. Nick Barr-MiraPK20 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 34th of 128 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
8. Kam BrownWR20 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 342nd of 474 WRs
   0.06WAR0.05 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 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

What it had and what it did, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74674623rd of 130Roster talent: 746, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21321328th of 130Recruiting: 213, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%41st of 128Returning production: 85%, 41st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.4+9.441st of 130SP+ rating: +9.4, 41st 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 UCLA's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.15 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 OREQ3 11:06 4th & 12 at UCLA 33, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.3 pts
2. at STANQ3 0:22 4th & 4 at STAN 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs LSUQ3 6:38 4th & 2 at LSU 25, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at WASHQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at WASH 36, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs OREQ4 14:52 4th & 18 at ORE 38, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
6. vs ASUQ2 3:51 4th & 3 at ASU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs ASUQ3 7:09 4th & 4 at ASU 28, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at UTAHQ4 1:08 4th & 6 at UTAH 26, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

52nd of 130 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.

1. W

   HAW
2. W

   LSU
3. L

   FRES
4. W

   STAN
5. L

   ASU
6. W

   ARIZ
7. W

   WASH
8. L

   ORE
9. L

   UTAH
10. W

    COLO
11. W

    USC
12. W

    CAL

What moved it, 2021

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+0.83
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.04
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.32

Game by game

• HAWW 44-10 vs HAW90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• LSUW 38-27 vs LSU43% → 97%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• FRESL 37-40 vs FRES75% → 15%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• STANW 35-24 at STAN65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• ASUL 23-42 vs ASU56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• ARIZW 34-16 at ARIZ88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• WASHW 24-17 at WASH44% → 94%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• OREL 31-34 vs ORE52% → 6%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• UTAHL 24-44 at UTAH39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• COLOW 44-20 vs COLO89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14
• USCW 62-33 at USC55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48
• CALW 42-14 vs CAL65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +36

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.