UConn

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2168th
  Defense+0.0946th
• 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.
  Offense44.4%58th
  Defense43.6%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3990th
  Defense+1.2158th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1974th
  Defense−0.0374th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3370th
  Defense+0.2433rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%50th
  Defense49.6%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.1%80th
  Defense29.6%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1053rd
  Defense2.9643rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%28th
  Defense18.5%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%72nd
  Defense16.1%54th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   LAF
2. L
   MD
3. W
   USM
4. L
   M-OH
5. L
   SYR
6. W
   TEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for UConn.

Players, 2026

1. Kalieb OsborneQB184 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 32nd of 192 QBs
   0.41WAR0.13 to 0.70
2. Cyncir BowersRB60 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 35th of 320 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
3. Ryder TreadwayWR17 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 112th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
4. Kenji ChristianRB35 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.08
5. Shamar PorterWR16 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 131st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
6. Trey CornistRB27 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 210th of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. Xavier WatsonTE10 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 59th of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65365373rd of 138Roster talent: 653, 73rd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  129129120th of 138Recruiting: 129, 120th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  2%2%130th of 136Returning production: 2%, 130th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.3−1.378th of 138SP+ rating so far: −1.3, 78th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.14 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 M-OHQ4 0:17 4th & 10 at M-OH 38, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.0 pts
2. at TEMQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at TEM 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at M-OHQ3 8:11 4th & 1 at CONN 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs SYRQ3 4:50 4th & 10 at SYR 30, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at M-OHQ2 3:07 4th & 4 at CONN 40, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs MDQ4 14:55 4th & 5 at CONN 34, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs SYRQ3 3:31 4th & 10 at SYR 31, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at TEMQ2 0:50 4th & 6 at TEM 33, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

55th of 138 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

   LAF
2. L

   MD
3. W

   USM
4. L

   M-OH
5. L

   SYR
6. W

   TEM

What moved it, 2026

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+0.33
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.21
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.30

Game by game

• LAFW 56-7 vs LAF92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• MDL 14-38 vs MD17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• USMW 48-20 at USM50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• M-OHL 21-24 at M-OH41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• SYRL 41-42 vs SYR28% → 26%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −19
• TEMW 34-20 at TEM36% → 99%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +59, 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.