UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.0113th
  Defense+0.0180th
• 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.
  Offense40.4%28th
  Defense40.6%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0913th
  Defense+1.1181st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0511th
  Defense0.0072nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0423rd
  Defense+0.0480th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%23rd
  Defense43.1%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%34th
  Defense34.9%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5713th
  Defense2.6275th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.2%10th
  Defense20.5%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%65th
  Defense2.4%72nd

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, 2015

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. W
   VILL
2. W
   ARMY
3. L
   MIZ
4. L
   NAVY
5. L
   BYU
6. W
   UCF
7. L
   USF
8. L
   CIN
9. W
   ECU
10. W
    TULN
11. W
    HOU
12. L
    TEM
13. L
    MRSH

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2015

1. Bryant ShirreffsQB362 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 52nd of 205 QBs
   1.59WAR1.00 to 2.23
2. Arkeel NewsomeRB216 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 75th of 333 RBs
   0.30WAR0.11 to 0.47
3. Noel ThomasWR70 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 78th of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.10 to 0.32
4. Bobby PuyolPK16 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 51st of 115 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
5. Tim BoyleQB33 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 186th of 205 QBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Ron JohnsonRB69 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 217th of 333 RBs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
7. Justin WainP64 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 72nd of 92 punters
   0.04WAR−0.06 to 0.17
8. Max DeLorenzoRB9 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 263rd of 333 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40240289th of 128Roster talent: 402, 89th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  110110108th of 128Recruiting: 110, 108th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%120th of 127Returning production: 27%, 120th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.3−6.391st of 128SP+ rating: −6.3, 91st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 15 clear-cut ones account for 0.51 of the 0.60 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 MIZQ4 0:39 4th & 4 at MIZ 25, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−11.1 pts
2. vs VILLQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at VILL 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.2 pts
3. at TULNQ4 4:35 4th & 1 at CONN 30, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
4. vs ARMYQ4 2:33 4th & 1 at CONN 39, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
5. vs USFQ4 12:27 4th & 1 at USF 27, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
6. at TULNQ3 5:33 4th & 1 at TULN 16, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
7. vs HOUQ3 1:17 4th & 1 at HOU 22, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
8. vs ECUQ3 9:08 4th & 1 at CONN 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

26th 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.

1. W

   VILL
2. W

   ARMY
3. L

   MIZ
4. L

   NAVY
5. L

   BYU
6. W

   UCF
7. L

   USF
8. L

   CIN
9. W

   ECU
10. W

    TULN
11. W

    HOU
12. L

    TEM
13. L

    MRSH

What moved it, 2015

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+0.34
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.64

Game by game

• VILLW 20-15 vs VILL70% → 93%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• ARMYW 22-17 vs ARMY70% → 91%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• MIZL 6-9 at MIZ5% → 4%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• NAVYL 18-28 vs NAVY27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• BYUL 13-30 at BYU35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• UCFW 40-13 at UCF37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +60, Clock +2
• USFL 20-28 vs USF50% → 3%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• CINL 13-37 at CIN14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• ECUW 31-13 vs ECU33% → 98%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• TULNW 7-3 at TULN61% → 88%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• HOUW 20-17 vs HOU22% → 91%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• TEML 3-27 at TEM17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Clock +1
• MRSHL 10-16 at MRSH34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position −1

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.