UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.018th
  Defense+0.1918th
• 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.
  Offense38.5%9th
  Defense46.3%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1221st
  Defense+1.1853rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0212th
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0320th
  Defense+0.326th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.0%12th
  Defense50.8%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.9%8th
  Defense36.5%20th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6011th
  Defense2.8461st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%20th
  Defense18.7%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.1%6th
  Defense12.5%6th

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, 2016

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
   ME
2. L
   NAVY
3. W
   UVA
4. L
   SYR
5. L
   HOU
6. W
   CIN
7. L
   USF
8. L
   UCF
9. L
   ECU
10. L
    TEM
11. L
    BC
12. L
    TULN

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2016

1. Bryant ShirreffsQB321 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 62nd of 218 QBs
   1.23WAR0.72 to 1.73
2. Arkeel NewsomeRB151 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 99th of 347 RBs
   0.35WAR0.19 to 0.50
3. Noel ThomasWR123 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 59th of 417 WRs
   0.22WAR0.07 to 0.37
4. Bobby PuyolPK16 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 83rd of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
5. Ron JohnsonRB63 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 253rd of 347 RBs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
6. Justin WainP55 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 71st of 82 punters
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.17
7. Tyraiq BealsWR11 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 371st of 417 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Donovan WilliamsTE15 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 46th of 195 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  42442487th of 128Roster talent: 424, 87th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  115115104th of 128Recruiting: 115, 104th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  98%98%7th of 128Returning production: 98%, 7th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.6−11.6107th of 128SP+ rating: −11.6, 107th 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, 2016

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 12 clear-cut ones account for 0.33 of the 0.39 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 NAVYQ4 9:08 4th & 1 at NAVY 21, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.7 pts
2. vs CINQ3 0:41 4th & 1 at CIN 13, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
3. vs SYRQ3 5:11 4th & 1 at SYR 10, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
4. vs UCFQ3 8:39 4th & 1 at CONN 44, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
5. vs UCFQ4 2:23 4th & 10 at UCF 21, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.9 pts
6. vs UVAQ3 10:07 4th & 4 at UVA 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
7. vs CINQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at CONN 47, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
8. vs UCFQ4 8:32 4th & 1 at CONN 21, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

119th 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

   ME
2. L

   NAVY
3. W

   UVA
4. L

   SYR
5. L

   HOU
6. W

   CIN
7. L

   USF
8. L

   UCF
9. L

   ECU
10. L

    TEM
11. L

    BC
12. L

    TULN

What moved it, 2016

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−2.99
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.03

Game by game

• MEW 24-21 vs ME96% → 1%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −95: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• NAVYL 24-28 at NAVY38% → 17%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position +3
• UVAW 13-10 vs UVA68% → 83%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• SYRL 24-31 vs SYR62% → 5%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• HOUL 14-42 at HOU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• CINW 20-9 vs CIN45% → 97%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• USFL 27-42 at USF12% → 2%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18
• UCFL 16-24 vs UCF42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• ECUL 3-41 at ECU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34
• TEML 0-21 vs TEM26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• BCL 0-30 at BC30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31
• TULNL 13-38 vs TULN61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, 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.