UCLA

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+0.3095th
  Defense+0.1528th
• 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.
  Offense53.8%99th
  Defense46.8%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2443rd
  Defense+1.1676th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3299th
  Defense+0.0942nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3279th
  Defense+0.2435th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense58.5%99th
  Defense53.4%8th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.7%98th
  Defense30.6%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6599th
  Defense3.3115th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.1%95th
  Defense16.0%38th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.4%85th
  Defense12.4%6th

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 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
   BGSU
2. W
   ALST
3. W
   USA
4. W
   COLO
5. W
   WASH
6. W
   UTAH
7. L
   ORE
8. W
   STAN
9. W
   ASU
10. L
    ARIZ
11. L
    USC
12. W
    CAL
13. L
    PITT

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCLA.

Players, 2022

1. Dorian Thompson-RobinsonQB438 plays · +0.359 pts/play · 4th of 234 QBs
   2.94WAR2.07 to 3.91
2. Zach CharbonnetRB221 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 6th of 384 RBs
   0.75WAR0.53 to 0.95
3. Jake BoboWR63 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 52nd of 455 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.32
4. Keegan JonesRB67 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 223rd of 384 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
5. Kam BrownWR30 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 227th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
6. Kazmeir AllenWR52 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 297th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
7. Nick Barr-MiraPK18 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 54th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.12
8. Michael EzeikeTE22 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 80th of 214 TEs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73373328th of 129Roster talent: 733, 28th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719738th of 129Recruiting: 197, 38th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%62nd of 128Returning production: 62%, 62nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.0+15.021st of 129SP+ rating: +15.0, 21st 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 UCLA'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 0.01 of the 0.04 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 ARIZQ2 0:17 4th & 7 at ARIZ 31, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
2. vs PITTQ3 9:40 4th & 3 at UCLA 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
3. at OREQ4 7:46 4th & 6 at ORE 13, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs USAQ4 9:08 4th & 5 at UCLA 44, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs ALSTQ2 2:43 4th & 1 at ALST 1, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs USAQ4 12:25 4th & 4 at USA 8, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at ASUQ4 8:58 4th & 4 at UCLA 29, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at OREQ4 14:50 4th & 8 at ORE 49, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

80th of 131 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

   BGSU
2. W

   ALST
3. W

   USA
4. W

   COLO
5. W

   WASH
6. W

   UTAH
7. L

   ORE
8. W

   STAN
9. W

   ASU
10. L

    ARIZ
11. L

    USC
12. W

    CAL
13. L

    PITT

What moved it, 2022

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+0.33
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.62

Game by game

• BGSUW 45-17 vs BGSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• ALSTW 45-7 vs ALST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• USAW 32-31 vs USA87% → 95%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• COLOW 45-17 at COLO92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• WASHW 40-32 vs WASH44% → 97%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• UTAHW 42-32 vs UTAH39% → 97%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• OREL 30-45 at ORE34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• STANW 38-13 vs STAN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• ASUW 50-36 at ASU83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• ARIZL 28-34 vs ARIZ89% → 11%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4
• USCL 45-48 vs USC50% → 6%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• CALW 35-28 at CAL81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• PITTL 35-37 vs PITT76% → 14%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4

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.