UCLA

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+0.0726th
  Defense+0.1341st
• 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.
  Offense39.0%18th
  Defense45.9%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3173rd
  Defense+1.1192nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.085th
  Defense+0.0273rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1749th
  Defense+0.2129th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.7%4th
  Defense51.3%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%87th
  Defense33.3%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.472nd
  Defense2.9259th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.8%9th
  Defense18.2%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%30th
  Defense18.1%71st

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 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. L
   IU
3. L
   LSU
4. L
   ORE
5. L
   PSU
6. L
   MINN
7. W
   RUTG
8. W
   NEB
9. W
   IOWA
10. L
    WASH
11. L
    USC
12. W
    FRES

Bars above the line: better than expected for UCLA.

Players, 2024

1. Ethan GarbersQB424 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 25th of 232 QBs
   2.05WAR1.35 to 2.73
2. T.J. HardenRB152 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 55th of 373 RBs
   0.37WAR0.24 to 0.49
3. Mateen BhaghaniPK23 plays · +0.350 pts/play · 6th of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
4. Moliki MatavaoTE41 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 13th of 221 TEs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
5. Keegan JonesRB57 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 198th of 373 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
6. Jalen BergerRB45 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 233rd of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
7. Logan LoyaWR25 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 162nd of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
8. Kwazi GilmerWR33 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 214th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.13

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75975929th of 131Roster talent: 759, 29th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18618655th of 131Recruiting: 186, 55th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%34th of 130Returning production: 62%, 34th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.3−1.373rd of 131SP+ rating: −1.3, 73rd 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 UCLA's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 of the 0.24 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 HAWQ4 0:56 4th & 1 at HAW 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.6 pts
2. vs MINNQ4 2:26 4th & 1 at UCLA 12, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
3. at NEBQ2 6:52 4th & 1 at NEB 8, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. vs FRESQ4 9:30 4th & 3 at UCLA 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at NEBQ4 2:22 4th & 1 at UCLA 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. vs USCQ2 6:31 4th & 4 at USC 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. at HAWQ3 0:54 4th & 4 at HAW 4, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at HAWQ2 7:46 4th & 4 at HAW 34, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

35th of 134 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. L

   IU
3. L

   LSU
4. L

   ORE
5. L

   PSU
6. L

   MINN
7. W

   RUTG
8. W

   NEB
9. W

   IOWA
10. L

    WASH
11. L

    USC
12. W

    FRES

What moved it, 2024

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+0.20
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• HAWW 16-13 at HAW78% → 88%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position +3
• IUL 13-42 vs IU40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45
• LSUL 17-34 at LSU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −14
• OREL 13-34 vs ORE6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12
• PSUL 11-27 at PSU2% → 1%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −6
• MINNL 17-21 vs MINN37% → 17%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −36, Clock −4
• RUTGW 35-32 at RUTG36% → 94%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• NEBW 27-20 at NEB25% → 95%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• IOWAW 20-17 vs IOWA30% → 95%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• WASHL 19-31 at WASH39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36
• USCL 13-19 vs USC36% → 5%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• FRESW 20-13 vs FRES68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −2

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.