UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.3096th
  Defense+0.1624th
• 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.
  Offense46.0%79th
  Defense46.6%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3486th
  Defense+1.1971st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1884th
  Defense+0.188th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4397th
  Defense+0.1747th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.9%95th
  Defense51.3%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.0%39th
  Defense33.5%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9350th
  Defense3.373rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.6%71st
  Defense12.0%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.9%93rd
  Defense14.8%33rd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   CCSU
2. L
   SYR
3. L
   DEL
4. W
   BALL
5. W
   BUF
6. W
   FIU
7. W
   BC
8. L
   RICE
9. W
   UAB
10. W
    DUKE
11. W
    AF
12. W
    FAU
13. L
    ARMY

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2025

1. Joe FagnanoQB371 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 61st of 231 QBs
   1.25WAR0.58 to 1.89
2. Cam EdwardsRB187 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 12th of 365 RBs
   0.43WAR0.32 to 0.55
3. Skyler BellWR119 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 70th of 451 WRs
   0.20WAR−0.02 to 0.43
4. Chris FreemanPK20 plays · +0.311 pts/play · 16th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.16
5. Reymello MurphyWR41 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.16
6. Juice VereenTE26 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 39th of 213 TEs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. John NeiderWR36 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 258th of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16
8. Alex HonigTE19 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 88th of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56856897th of 134Roster talent: 568, 97th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  113113120th of 134Recruiting: 113, 120th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%10th of 132Returning production: 68%, 10th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.1+5.152nd of 134SP+ rating: +5.1, 52nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.25 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 BCQ3 4:37 4th & 1 at CONN 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at BUFQ4 6:55 4th & 11 at BUF 33, up 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.7 pts
3. vs DUKEQ4 13:38 4th & 9 at CONN 34, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.4 pts
4. vs DUKEQ3 6:50 4th & 2 at DUKE 2, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
5. at RICEQ4 9:15 4th & 4 at CONN 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
6. at ARMYQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at ARMY 31, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. at BUFQ3 1:31 4th & 3 at BUF 22, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. at RICEQ3 6:06 4th & 3 at RICE 27, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

58th of 136 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

   CCSU
2. L

   SYR
3. L

   DEL
4. W

   BALL
5. W

   BUF
6. W

   FIU
7. W

   BC
8. L

   RICE
9. W

   UAB
10. W

    DUKE
11. W

    AF
12. W

    FAU
13. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2025

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+1.15
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.90
• Other+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.99

Game by game

• CCSUW 59-13 vs CCSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• SYRL 20-27 at SYR38% → 43%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +1, Timeouts +1
• DELL 41-44 at DEL75% → 15%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +24
• BALLW 31-25 vs BALL94% → 92%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts −3
• BUFW 20-17 at BUF56% → 97%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +21
• FIUW 51-10 vs FIU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Clock −1
• BCW 38-23 at BC55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +18
• RICEL 34-37 at RICE79% → 15%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +24
• UABW 38-19 vs UAB80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• DUKEW 37-34 vs DUKE32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• AFW 26-16 vs AF74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• FAUW 48-45 at FAU68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +37
• ARMYL 16-41 at ARMY40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −38, 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.