UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1350th
  Defense+0.0477th
• 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.
  Offense41.8%39th
  Defense39.4%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2229th
  Defense+1.1875th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1569th
  Defense+0.0271st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1436th
  Defense+0.0873rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%35th
  Defense45.5%61st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%35th
  Defense26.1%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0757th
  Defense2.7677th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%38th
  Defense21.0%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.7%79th
  Defense17.8%68th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   MD
2. W
   MRMK
3. L
   DUKE
4. W
   FAU
5. W
   BUF
6. W
   TEM
7. L
   WAKE
8. W
   RICE
9. W
   GAST
10. W
    UAB
11. L
    SYR
12. W
    MASS
13. W
    UNC

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2024

1. Nick EversQB242 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 109th of 232 QBs
   0.68WAR0.25 to 1.09
2. Cam EdwardsRB127 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 56th of 373 RBs
   0.37WAR0.27 to 0.46
3. Joe FagnanoQB162 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 149th of 232 QBs
   0.33WAR−0.01 to 0.62
4. Durell RobinsonRB84 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 135th of 373 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.27
5. Connor StutzP53 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 31st of 106 punters
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.21
6. Chris FreemanPK21 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 38th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
7. Skyler BellWR46 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 254th of 452 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.04 to 0.13
8. Louis HansenTE24 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 70th of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.10

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  538538101st of 131Roster talent: 538, 101st of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  113113117th of 131Recruiting: 113, 117th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  29%29%100th of 130Returning production: 29%, 100th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.5+1.565th of 131SP+ rating: +1.5, 65th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 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 RICEQ3 11:14 4th & 1 at RICE 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. at UABQ4 5:02 4th & 2 at CONN 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs WAKEQ4 10:04 4th & 1 at CONN 35, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at MASSQ3 6:46 4th & 6 at MASS 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs BUFQ2 5:18 4th & 3 at BUF 4, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs TEMQ4 8:31 4th & 2 at CONN 33, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at UNCQ3 1:19 4th & 4 at UNC 34, up 20Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at MASSQ3 12:26 4th & 8 at CONN 47, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

17th of 134 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

   MD
2. W

   MRMK
3. L

   DUKE
4. W

   FAU
5. W

   BUF
6. W

   TEM
7. L

   WAKE
8. W

   RICE
9. W

   GAST
10. W

    UAB
11. L

    SYR
12. W

    MASS
13. W

    UNC

What moved it, 2024

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+2.06
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.15

Game by game

• MDL 7-50 at MD10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −12
• MRMKW 63-17 vs MRMK82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −1
• DUKEL 21-26 at DUKE12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• FAUW 48-14 vs FAU54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +44
• BUFW 47-3 vs BUF69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33
• TEMW 29-20 vs TEM88% → 95%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• WAKEL 20-23 vs WAKE43% → 7%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• RICEW 17-10 vs RICE67% → 95%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +3
• GASTW 34-27 vs GAST72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −3
• UABW 31-23 at UAB65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• SYRL 24-31 at SYR22% → 3%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• MASSW 47-42 at MASS74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• UNCW 27-14 at UNC38% → 98%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +56, 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.