UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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−0.091st
  Defense+0.2516th
• 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.
  Offense31.2%1st
  Defense47.1%14th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4195th
  Defense+1.2463rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.063rd
  Defense+0.2217th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.071st
  Defense+0.3119th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense35.2%1st
  Defense52.3%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.5%3rd
  Defense33.8%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.602nd
  Defense3.2429th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.7%5th
  Defense14.8%27th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense26.2%1st
  Defense13.8%15th

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, 2021

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
   FRES
2. L
   HC
3. L
   PUR
4. L
   ARMY
5. L
   WYO
6. L
   VAN
7. L
   MASS
8. W
   YALE
9. L
   MTSU
10. L
    CLEM
11. L
    UCF
12. L
    HOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2021

1. Steven KrajewskiQB111 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 161st of 219 QBs
   0.33WAR0.12 to 0.53
2. Nathan CarterRB70 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 194th of 387 RBs
   0.24WAR0.18 to 0.29
3. Tyler PhommachanhQB52 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 189th of 219 QBs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
4. Joe McFaddenPK13 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 86th of 128 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
5. Brian BrewtonRB7 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 342nd of 387 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
6. Kevin MensahRB6 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 363rd of 387 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
7. Jay RoseTE10 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  332332118th of 130Roster talent: 332, 118th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9595129th of 130Recruiting: 95, 129th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −25.6−25.6129th of 130SP+ rating: −25.6, 129th 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, 2021

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.11 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 MASSQ4 10:07 4th & 3 at MASS 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.2 pts
2. vs WYOQ2 2:58 4th & 2 at WYO 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
3. at VANQ3 10:05 4th & 3 at VAN 5, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
4. vs YALEQ4 13:42 4th & 2 at CONN 45, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
5. vs HCQ4 10:25 4th & 8 at HC 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
6. vs HCQ4 3:03 4th & 10 at CONN 40, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.6 pts
7. vs YALEQ1 2:12 4th & 2 at YALE 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
8. at MASSQ2 6:54 4th & 5 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

102nd 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

   FRES
2. L

   HC
3. L

   PUR
4. L

   ARMY
5. L

   WYO
6. L

   VAN
7. L

   MASS
8. W

   YALE
9. L

   MTSU
10. L

    CLEM
11. L

    UCF
12. L

    HOU

What moved it, 2021

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−1.58
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.82

Game by game

• FRESL 0-45 at FRES5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• HCL 28-38 vs HC64% → 7%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −53, Possession & field position −2
• PURL 0-49 vs PUR2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• ARMYL 21-52 at ARMY2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• WYOL 22-24 vs WYO3% → 42%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +39: Scoreboard −12, Possession & field position +3
• VANL 28-30 at VAN15% → 5%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position −1
• MASSL 13-27 at MASS58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts +1
• YALEW 21-15 vs YALE44% → 88%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• MTSUL 13-44 vs MTSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• CLEML 7-44 at CLEM1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• UCFL 17-49 at UCF3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• HOUL 17-45 vs HOU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: 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.