UConn

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−0.032nd
  Defense+0.1450th
• 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.
  Offense35.3%2nd
  Defense42.9%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2155th
  Defense+1.0890th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.082nd
  Defense+0.0667th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0410th
  Defense+0.2439th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.6%2nd
  Defense48.8%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.0%13th
  Defense30.8%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.417th
  Defense2.8454th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.7%1st
  Defense22.6%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense1.1%1st

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 UConn 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. L
   BYU
2. W
   STBK
3. L
   BOIS
4. L
   USF
5. L
   TEM
6. L
   TULN
7. L
   ECU
8. W
   UCF
9. L
   ARMY
10. L
    CIN
11. L
    MEM
12. L
    SMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2014

1. Chandler WhitmerQB218 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 112th of 199 QBs
   0.86WAR0.41 to 1.28
2. Geremy DavisWR49 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 106th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.23
3. Tim BoyleQB56 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 169th of 199 QBs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
4. Max DeLorenzoRB59 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 179th of 350 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Ron JohnsonRB87 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 198th of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Deshon FoxxWR51 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 225th of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
7. Noel ThomasWR27 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 261st of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Bobby PuyolPK9 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 92nd of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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 UConn'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 UConn's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 STBKQ4 0:49 4th & 1 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.3 pts
2. at ECUQ4 11:12 4th & 2 at CONN 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it1.9 pts
3. vs STBKQ3 7:12 4th & 3 at STBK 40, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
4. vs BYUQ3 8:48 4th & 16 at BYU 23, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.2 pts
5. at TULNQ4 1:52 4th & 3 at TULN 18, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
6. vs SMUQ2 5:48 4th & 1 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
7. vs UCFQ4 8:05 4th & 1 at CONN 29, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
8. vs ARMYQ4 12:54 4th & 6 at ARMY 16, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

123rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up UConn's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   BYU
2. W

   STBK
3. L

   BOIS
4. L

   USF
5. L

   TEM
6. L

   TULN
7. L

   ECU
8. W

   UCF
9. L

   ARMY
10. L

    CIN
11. L

    MEM
12. L

    SMU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at UConn'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−2.16
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• BYUL 10-35 vs BYU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• STBKW 19-16 vs STBK87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• BOISL 21-38 vs BOIS15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• USFL 14-17 at USF39% → 5%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• TEML 10-36 vs TEM39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45
• TULNL 3-12 at TULN41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• ECUL 21-31 at ECU6% → 4%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −13
• UCFW 37-29 vs UCF22% → 97%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +2
• ARMYL 21-35 vs ARMY53% → 2%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −1
• MEML 10-41 at MEM11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• SMUL 20-27 vs SMU80% → 9%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −51, Possession & field position −2

Points of win probability, from UConn's side.

Closest call

ME 21-24 CONN (2016) - UConn dropped to a 1.0% win probability before pulling it out.