UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0318th
  Defense+0.1820th
• 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.
  Offense40.0%31st
  Defense46.4%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1513th
  Defense+1.2265th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.093rd
  Defense+0.0561st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2245th
  Defense+0.388th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%37th
  Defense52.0%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%33rd
  Defense33.2%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7410th
  Defense2.9074th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%8th
  Defense19.1%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%48th
  Defense15.6%34th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   NCSU
2. L
   GAST
3. L
   FIU
4. L
   DUKE
5. L
   USU
6. W
   RICE
7. L
   USF
8. L
   BC
9. L
   TENN
10. L
    JMU
11. W
    SHU
12. W
    MASS

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2023

1. Ta'Quan RobersonQB225 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 112th of 250 QBs
   0.74WAR0.30 to 1.23
2. Justin JolyTE39 plays · +0.338 pts/play · 3rd of 212 TEs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.34
3. Victor RosaRB95 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 144th of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.28
4. Cam EdwardsRB91 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 147th of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.24
5. Joe FagnanoQB51 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 212th of 250 QBs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.23
6. Cam RossWR38 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 170th of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.18
7. Devontae HoustonRB37 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 247th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. George CaratanP44 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 75th of 103 punters
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.14

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48548593rd of 130Roster talent: 485, 93rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  7979127th of 130Recruiting: 79, 127th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%45th of 128Returning production: 63%, 45th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.6−15.6117th of 130SP+ rating: −15.6, 117th 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, 2023

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 0.14 of the 0.17 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 FIUQ4 3:08 4th & 3 at CONN 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
2. at RICEQ4 9:18 4th & 1 at CONN 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs USFQ4 6:58 4th & 6 at USF 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at RICEQ4 2:10 4th & 1 at CONN 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs USUQ3 4:48 4th & 2 at CONN 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs USFQ3 13:25 4th & 2 at CONN 35, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at BCQ3 5:24 4th & 2 at CONN 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs NCSUQ4 3:14 4th & 2 at CONN 28, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

101st of 133 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

   NCSU
2. L

   GAST
3. L

   FIU
4. L

   DUKE
5. L

   USU
6. W

   RICE
7. L

   USF
8. L

   BC
9. L

   TENN
10. L

    JMU
11. W

    SHU
12. W

    MASS

What moved it, 2023

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−1.26
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.59

Game by game

• NCSUL 14-24 vs NCSU13% → 3%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −24, Clock −2
• GASTL 14-35 at GAST41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position −1
• FIUL 17-24 vs FIU65% → 5%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• DUKEL 7-41 vs DUKE6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• USUL 33-34 vs USU37% → 6%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• RICEW 38-31 at RICE24% → 96%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• USFL 21-24 vs USF49% → 16%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• BCL 14-21 at BC15% → 5%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position −1
• TENNL 3-59 at TENN1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• JMUL 6-44 at JMU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• SHUW 31-3 vs SHU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• MASSW 31-18 at MASS49% → 98%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3

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.