UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0821st
  Defense+0.2020th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%45th
  Defense39.4%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+0.981st
  Defense+1.394th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1256th
  Defense+0.2015th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1124th
  Defense+0.2053rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%70th
  Defense44.6%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.3%6th
  Defense30.4%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2082nd
  Defense3.0824th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.4%91st
  Defense20.0%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.4%25th
  Defense2.3%69th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 UTEP 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
   UNM
2. L
   TTU
3. W
   NMSU
4. L
   KSU
5. L
   LT
6. W
   ODU
7. W
   UTSA
8. W
   USM
9. L
   WKU
10. W
    UNT
11. L
    RICE
12. W
    MTSU
13. L
    USU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2014

1. Jameill ShowersQB296 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 72nd of 199 QBs
   1.37WAR0.80 to 1.85
2. Aaron JonesRB224 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 19th of 350 RBs
   0.52WAR0.30 to 0.72
3. Nathan JefferyRB101 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 110th of 350 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.28
4. Jay MattoxPK14 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 77th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
5. Ian HamiltonWR42 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 247th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
6. Jeremiah LaufasaRB10 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 281st of 350 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
7. Jaquan WhiteWR5 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 421st of 469 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
8. Autrey GoldenWR54 plays · +0.010 pts/play · 424th of 469 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.05 to 0.07

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 UTEP'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 UTEP'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 0.12 of the 0.22 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 WKUQ4 12:36 4th & 1 at UTEP 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at UTSAQ2 3:00 4th & 2 at UTSA 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs USUQ3 8:50 4th & 1 at UTEP 48, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. at UNMQ4 3:10 4th & 10 at UNM 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs USMQ3 5:56 4th & 2 at UTEP 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at UNMQ2 2:20 4th & 5 at UNM 42, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs USUQ4 3:02 4th & 6 at USU 16, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs ODUQ4 0:06 4th & 3 at ODU 35, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

10th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up UTEP's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UNM
2. L

   TTU
3. W

   NMSU
4. L

   KSU
5. L

   LT
6. W

   ODU
7. W

   UTSA
8. W

   USM
9. L

   WKU
10. W

    UNT
11. L

    RICE
12. W

    MTSU
13. L

    USU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at UTEP'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+1.41
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• UNMW 31-24 at UNM31% → 95%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• TTUL 26-30 vs TTU10% → 9%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• NMSUW 42-24 vs NMSU77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +28, Clock −1
• KSUL 28-58 at KSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• LTL 3-55 at LT19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• ODUW 42-35 vs ODU50% → 96%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• UTSAW 34-0 at UTSA27% → 100%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +66, Clock +1
• USMW 35-14 vs USM66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• WKUL 27-35 at WKU25% → 5%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −2
• UNTW 35-17 vs UNT75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Clock −2
• RICEL 13-31 at RICE24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• MTSUW 24-21 vs MTSU58% → 88%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +2
• USUL 6-21 vs USU24% → 2%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1

Points of win probability, from UTEP's side.

Closest call

UIW 17-27 UTEP (2015) - UTEP dropped to a 1.3% win probability before pulling it out.