UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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−0.037th
  Defense+0.264th
• 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.
  Offense37.8%9th
  Defense48.9%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2878th
  Defense+1.371st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0229th
  Defense+0.321st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.076th
  Defense+0.2137th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.6%13th
  Defense51.9%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.7%8th
  Defense41.5%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7629th
  Defense3.345th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.5%12th
  Defense15.5%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.1%32nd
  Defense15.0%4th

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, 2019

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
   WAG
2. L
   ILL
3. L
   IU
4. L
   UCF
5. L
   USF
6. L
   TULN
7. L
   HOU
8. W
   MASS
9. L
   NAVY
10. L
    CIN
11. L
    ECU
12. L
    TEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2019

1. Jack ZergiotisQB208 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 105th of 228 QBs
   0.67WAR0.32 to 1.02
2. Kevin MensahRB112 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 132nd of 349 RBs
   0.33WAR0.24 to 0.43
3. Art ThompkinsRB72 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 219th of 349 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
4. Cam RossWR57 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 94th of 439 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
5. Luke MagliozziP27 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 74th of 100 punters
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.07
6. Jay RoseTE25 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 77th of 207 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.06

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  413413100th of 130Roster talent: 413, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  126126106th of 130Recruiting: 126, 106th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  3%3%130th of 130Returning production: 3%, 130th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −24.4−24.4125th of 130SP+ rating: −24.4, 125th 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, 2019

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 0.08 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 ILLQ4 7:42 4th & 2 at CONN 18, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at MASSQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at CONN 32, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs ECUQ2 12:06 4th & 1 at CONN 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs HOUQ3 4:48 4th & 4 at HOU 25, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs HOUQ2 4:23 4th & 2 at CONN 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at TEMQ2 3:23 4th & 4 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs ECUQ1 5:57 4th & 1 at CONN 31, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs USFQ4 15:00 4th & 5 at USF 11, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

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

   WAG
2. L

   ILL
3. L

   IU
4. L

   UCF
5. L

   USF
6. L

   TULN
7. L

   HOU
8. W

   MASS
9. L

   NAVY
10. L

    CIN
11. L

    ECU
12. L

    TEM

What moved it, 2019

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−0.62
• Clock−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.44

Game by game

• WAGW 24-21 vs WAG93% → 91%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• ILLL 23-31 vs ILL7% → 4%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• IUL 3-38 at IU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• UCFL 21-56 at UCF1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• USFL 22-48 vs USF18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −25
• TULNL 7-49 at TULN2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• HOUL 17-24 vs HOU6% → 4%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• MASSW 56-35 at MASS73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• NAVYL 10-56 vs NAVY5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −9
• CINL 3-48 at CIN2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• ECUL 24-31 vs ECU11% → 6%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• TEML 17-49 at TEM4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6

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.