UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.0312th
  Defense+0.1428th
• 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.
  Offense38.6%14th
  Defense41.4%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1635th
  Defense+1.424th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.096th
  Defense+0.0745th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0627th
  Defense+0.2424th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%19th
  Defense47.5%49th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.7%14th
  Defense30.2%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6015th
  Defense2.7361st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.1%18th
  Defense21.8%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense1.6%25th

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, 2015

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. L
   ARK
2. L
   TTU
3. W
   NMSU
4. W
   UIW
5. L
   UTSA
6. L
   FIU
7. W
   FAU
8. L
   USM
9. W
   RICE
10. L
    ODU
11. L
    LT
12. W
    UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2015

1. Mack LeftwichQB121 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 124th of 205 QBs
   0.61WAR0.44 to 0.80
2. Ryan MetzQB108 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 151st of 205 QBs
   0.34WAR0.17 to 0.52
3. Jeremiah LaufasaRB70 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 171st of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
4. Jaquan WhiteWR41 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 213th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17
5. Jay MattoxPK13 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 90th of 115 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
6. Aaron JonesRB21 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 242nd of 333 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. Kavika JohnsonWR41 plays · +0.025 pts/play · 374th of 411 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.03 to 0.07
8. Autrey GoldenWR33 plays · +0.009 pts/play · 397th of 411 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.03 to 0.04

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  256256125th of 128Roster talent: 256, 125th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8181128th of 128Recruiting: 81, 128th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%113th of 127Returning production: 34%, 113th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.5−19.5123rd of 128SP+ rating: −19.5, 123rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.20 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 NMSUQ4 11:08 4th & 3 at NMSU 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
2. at UNTQ3 7:23 4th & 1 at UTEP 17, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs UTSAQ4 10:59 4th & 7 at UTSA 14, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
4. at NMSUQ4 9:34 4th & 2 at UTEP 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at NMSUQ2 8:40 4th & 1 at UTEP 29, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs UTSAQ2 13:28 4th & 1 at UTEP 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at ODUQ3 6:30 4th & 3 at UTEP 20, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs LTQ4 9:17 4th & 7 at UTEP 49, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

44th 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   ARK
2. L

   TTU
3. W

   NMSU
4. W

   UIW
5. L

   UTSA
6. L

   FIU
7. W

   FAU
8. L

   USM
9. W

   RICE
10. L

    ODU
11. L

    LT
12. W

    UNT

What moved it, 2015

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−0.62
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• ARKL 13-48 at ARK1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• TTUL 20-69 at TTU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −11
• NMSUW 50-47 at NMSU53% → 88%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +18
• UIWW 27-17 vs UIW97% → 3%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −94: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• UTSAL 6-25 vs UTSA41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• FIUL 12-52 at FIU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• FAUW 27-17 vs FAU30% → 96%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +3
• USML 13-34 at USM8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12
• ODUL 21-31 at ODU41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• LTL 15-17 vs LT7% → 24%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +17: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position −2
• UNTW 20-17 at UNT34% → 90%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +47, Clock +4

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.