UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0111th
  Defense+0.0573rd
• 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.
  Offense37.7%12th
  Defense45.9%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2445th
  Defense+1.0895th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1153rd
  Defense+0.0942nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.058th
  Defense+0.1373rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%28th
  Defense51.5%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.
  Offense24.8%10th
  Defense31.4%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9427th
  Defense3.2131st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%4th
  Defense13.5%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%38th
  Defense13.7%15th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   USU
2. W
   CCSU
3. L
   SYR
4. L
   MICH
5. L
   NCSU
6. W
   FRES
7. W
   FIU
8. L
   BALL
9. W
   BC
10. W
    MASS
11. W
    LIB
12. L
    ARMY
13. L
    MRSH

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2022

1. Zion TurnerQB243 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 151st of 234 QBs
   0.30WAR−0.26 to 0.85
2. Victor RosaRB91 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 123rd of 384 RBs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.33
3. Devontae HoustonRB74 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 147th of 384 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.28
4. Robert BurnsRB53 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 206th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Aaron TurnerWR56 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 143rd of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.21
6. Nathan CarterRB32 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 273rd of 384 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Kevens ClerciusWR21 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Justin JolyTE19 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 52nd of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  239239125th of 129Roster talent: 239, 125th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9191127th of 129Recruiting: 91, 127th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%63rd of 128Returning production: 61%, 63rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.6−14.6110th of 129SP+ rating: −14.6, 110th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 2 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. at BALLQ4 14:04 4th & 1 at CONN 44, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs BCQ4 6:32 4th & 3 at BC 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs FRESQ4 0:00 4th & 2 at FRES 22, up 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs FRESQ3 2:42 4th & 3 at CONN 42, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs MRSHQ4 9:57 4th & 13 at MRSH 45, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs CCSUQ2 13:29 4th & 3 at CCSU 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs BCQ3 3:08 4th & 6 at BC 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at USUQ3 11:38 4th & 4 at CONN 47, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

7th of 131 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

   USU
2. W

   CCSU
3. L

   SYR
4. L

   MICH
5. L

   NCSU
6. W

   FRES
7. W

   FIU
8. L

   BALL
9. W

   BC
10. W

    MASS
11. W

    LIB
12. L

    ARMY
13. L

    MRSH

What moved it, 2022

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+0.86
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.32

Game by game

• USUL 20-31 at USU6% → 4%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• CCSUW 28-3 vs CCSU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13, Clock +1
• SYRL 14-48 vs SYR6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• MICHL 0-59 at MICH0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• NCSUL 10-41 at NCSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• FRESW 19-14 vs FRES5% → 96%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +90: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• FIUW 33-12 at FIU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• BALLL 21-25 at BALL26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• BCW 13-3 vs BC25% → 93%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• MASSW 27-10 vs MASS82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• LIBW 36-33 vs LIB20% → 96%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +3
• ARMYL 17-34 at ARMY27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• MRSHL 14-28 vs MRSH18% → 2%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2

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.