UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0731st
  Defense+0.229th
• 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.
  Offense40.1%14th
  Defense49.4%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3085th
  Defense+1.1283rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1467th
  Defense+0.252nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0117th
  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.
  Offense45.1%20th
  Defense55.1%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.4%13th
  Defense35.4%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0764th
  Defense3.492nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%58th
  Defense14.1%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%16th
  Defense11.9%2nd

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, 2016

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
   NMSU
2. L
   TEX
3. L
   ARMY
4. L
   USM
5. L
   LT
6. L
   FIU
7. W
   UTSA
8. L
   ODU
9. W
   HCU
10. L
    FAU
11. L
    RICE
12. W
    UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2016

1. Aaron JonesRB186 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 30th of 347 RBs
   0.63WAR0.44 to 0.87
2. Ryan MetzQB114 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 155th of 218 QBs
   0.26WAR0.06 to 0.45
3. Alan LunaPK40 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 21st of 116 kickers
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.22
4. Zack GreenleeQB72 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 178th of 218 QBs
   0.14WAR0.02 to 0.27
5. Cole FreytagWR28 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 167th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
6. Kavika JohnsonWR13 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 386th of 417 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
7. Jay MattoxPK4 plays · +0.294 pts/play · 111th of 116 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Warren RedixWR8 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 403rd of 417 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  290290124th of 128Roster talent: 290, 124th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8787128th of 128Recruiting: 87, 128th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  92%92%13th of 128Returning production: 92%, 13th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.1−16.1120th of 128SP+ rating: −16.1, 120th 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, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 FIUQ3 9:09 4th & 1 at UTEP 37, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at FAUQ2 5:41 4th & 3 at FAU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs FIUQ2 0:38 4th & 19 at FIU 43, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. vs ODUQ4 8:11 4th & 10 at ODU 20, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs UNTQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at UTEP 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs FIUQ4 8:51 4th & 10 at FIU 12, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at TEXQ3 11:39 4th & 1 at UTEP 13, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs FIUQ2 14:52 4th & 3 at FIU 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

115th 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. W

   NMSU
2. L

   TEX
3. L

   ARMY
4. L

   USM
5. L

   LT
6. L

   FIU
7. W

   UTSA
8. L

   ODU
9. W

   HCU
10. L

    FAU
11. L

    RICE
12. W

    UNT

What moved it, 2016

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−1.76
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.19

Game by game

• NMSUW 38-22 vs NMSU65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• TEXL 7-41 at TEX4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• ARMYL 14-66 vs ARMY42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• USML 7-34 vs USM26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• LTL 7-28 at LT11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• FIUL 21-35 vs FIU58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Possession & field position +1
• ODUL 21-31 vs ODU35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• HCUW 42-10 vs HCU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• FAUL 31-35 at FAU50% → 4%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −1
• RICEL 24-44 at RICE60% → 0%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −1
• UNTW 52-24 vs UNT50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +45

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.