UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0428th
  Defense+0.254th
• 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.
  Offense39.7%19th
  Defense48.2%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2985th
  Defense+1.2533rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.089th
  Defense+0.1032nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1651st
  Defense+0.385th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.2%8th
  Defense52.6%10th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%60th
  Defense38.2%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.549th
  Defense3.1619th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.0%11th
  Defense17.2%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%32nd
  Defense12.8%8th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   HC
2. L
   UVA
3. L
   ECU
4. L
   SMU
5. L
   MEM
6. W
   TEM
7. W
   TLSA
8. L
   MIZ
9. L
   USF
10. L
    UCF
11. L
    BC
12. L
    CIN

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2017

1. Bryant ShirreffsQB271 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 78th of 226 QBs
   0.97WAR0.56 to 1.40
2. David PindellQB110 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 135th of 226 QBs
   0.42WAR0.23 to 0.59
3. Kevin MensahRB106 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 157th of 352 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.27
4. Nate HopkinsRB56 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 189th of 352 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
5. Arkeel NewsomeRB65 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 228th of 352 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
6. Michael TarbuttPK16 plays · +0.340 pts/play · 57th of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Hergy MayalaWR43 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 286th of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
8. Aaron McLeanTE27 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 16th of 199 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  42042081st of 130Roster talent: 420, 81st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  117117104th of 130Recruiting: 117, 104th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%65th of 128Returning production: 61%, 65th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.2−19.2120th of 128SP+ rating: −19.2, 120th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.10 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 TEMQ4 8:21 4th & 2 at CONN 28, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs ECUQ3 0:50 4th & 3 at ECU 3, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. vs MEMQ3 7:48 4th & 13 at MEM 28, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. vs TLSAQ4 0:57 4th & 3 at TLSA 39, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs ECUQ1 2:20 4th & 1 at CONN 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs ECUQ4 14:07 4th & 3 at CONN 39, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at CINQ3 2:07 4th & 8 at CIN 35, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs ECUQ2 11:25 4th & 5 at ECU 46, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

74th of 130 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

   HC
2. L

   UVA
3. L

   ECU
4. L

   SMU
5. L

   MEM
6. W

   TEM
7. W

   TLSA
8. L

   MIZ
9. L

   USF
10. L

    UCF
11. L

    BC
12. L

    CIN

What moved it, 2017

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−0.63
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• HCW 27-20 vs HC93% → 97%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• UVAL 18-38 at UVA21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24
• ECUL 38-41 vs ECU65% → 23%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• SMUL 28-49 at SMU12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• MEML 31-70 vs MEM13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18
• TEMW 28-24 at TEM26% → 95%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• TLSAW 20-14 vs TLSA43% → 80%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −4
• MIZL 12-52 vs MIZ15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21
• USFL 20-37 vs USF6% → 2%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −15
• UCFL 24-49 at UCF1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• BCL 16-39 vs BC9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• CINL 21-22 at CIN31% → 36%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +5: Scoreboard −5, Possession & field position +4

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.