UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0937th
  Defense+0.511st
• 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.
  Offense41.7%33rd
  Defense57.5%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3288th
  Defense+1.396th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1164th
  Defense+0.451st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0726th
  Defense+0.631st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%40th
  Defense60.1%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%24th
  Defense49.7%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0467th
  Defense3.572nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%29th
  Defense17.4%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%22nd
  Defense10.7%3rd

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, 2018

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
   UCF
2. L
   BOIS
3. W
   URI
4. L
   SYR
5. L
   CIN
6. L
   MEM
7. L
   USF
8. L
   MASS
9. L
   TLSA
10. L
    SMU
11. L
    ECU
12. L
    TEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2018

1. David PindellQB219 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 72nd of 225 QBs
   1.20WAR0.83 to 1.57
2. Kevin MensahRB116 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 131st of 351 RBs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.42
3. Michael TarbuttPK8 plays · +0.364 pts/play · 97th of 112 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
4. Aaron McLeanTE17 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 38th of 204 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
5. Tyler DavisTE15 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05
6. Hergy MayalaWR19 plays · +0.041 pts/play · 397th of 434 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.04
7. Zavier ScottWR9 plays · +0.051 pts/play · 414th of 434 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  38938998th of 130Roster talent: 389, 98th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  124124103rd of 130Recruiting: 124, 103rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%87th of 129Returning production: 53%, 87th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −26.4−26.4128th of 130SP+ rating: −26.4, 128th of 130 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, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 MASSQ4 12:27 4th & 3 at MASS 24, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs MASSQ1 3:24 4th & 1 at MASS 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at TLSAQ2 8:52 4th & 3 at TLSA 33, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs CINQ2 14:16 4th & 2 at CONN 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at USFQ2 3:07 4th & 3 at CONN 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs SMUQ4 1:15 4th & 5 at SMU 21, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at SYRQ3 10:35 4th & 1 at CONN 34, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs MASSQ2 7:44 4th & 3 at CONN 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

90th 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. L

   UCF
2. L

   BOIS
3. W

   URI
4. L

   SYR
5. L

   CIN
6. L

   MEM
7. L

   USF
8. L

   MASS
9. L

   TLSA
10. L

    SMU
11. L

    ECU
12. L

    TEM

What moved it, 2018

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−1.23
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• UCFL 17-56 vs UCF7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• BOISL 7-62 at BOIS2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• URIW 56-49 vs URI74% → 84%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −3
• SYRL 21-51 at SYR3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• CINL 7-49 vs CIN11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• MEML 14-55 at MEM2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• USFL 30-38 at USF3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• MASSL 17-22 vs MASS36% → 5%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• TLSAL 19-49 at TLSA10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• SMUL 50-62 vs SMU12% → 3%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• ECUL 21-55 at ECU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18
• TEML 7-57 vs TEM3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7

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.