UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.141st
  Defense+0.237th
• 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.
  Offense33.4%1st
  Defense47.5%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1842nd
  Defense+1.2052nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0319th
  Defense+0.242nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.232nd
  Defense+0.2324th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.1%4th
  Defense50.7%19th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense19.1%1st
  Defense40.3%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7130th
  Defense3.531st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%29th
  Defense16.2%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.0%8th
  Defense12.0%3rd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   OU
2. L
   RICE
3. L
   ARIZ
4. L
   NMSU
5. L
   ARMY
6. L
   WKU
7. L
   USM
8. L
   UTSA
9. L
   MTSU
10. L
    UNT
11. L
    LT
12. L
    UAB

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2017

1. Zack GreenleeQB139 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 157th of 226 QBs
   0.29WAR0.05 to 0.52
2. Ryan MetzQB100 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 167th of 226 QBs
   0.26WAR0.10 to 0.44
3. Quardraiz WadleyRB50 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 205th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
4. Josh FieldsRB55 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 208th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
5. Kevin DoveRB49 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 238th of 352 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Alan LunaPK52 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 71st of 110 kickers
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.17
7. Terry JunielWR24 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 367th of 426 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Walter Dawn Jr.WR16 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 403rd of 426 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.01 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 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  264264124th of 130Roster talent: 264, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8787128th of 130Recruiting: 87, 128th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%106th of 128Returning production: 35%, 106th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −27.4−27.4128th of 128SP+ rating: −27.4, 128th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 WKUQ4 10:25 4th & 4 at midfield, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs WKUQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at UTEP 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at ARMYQ4 11:00 4th & 14 at ARMY 22, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs UTSAQ2 10:51 4th & 3 at UTSA 49, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at USMQ2 4:49 4th & 8 at USM 28, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at USMQ2 13:25 4th & 5 at USM 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at NMSUQ3 12:35 4th & 3 at UTEP 19, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs UTSAQ4 5:28 4th & 5 at UTSA 34, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

110th of 130 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. L

   OU
2. L

   RICE
3. L

   ARIZ
4. L

   NMSU
5. L

   ARMY
6. L

   WKU
7. L

   USM
8. L

   UTSA
9. L

   MTSU
10. L

    UNT
11. L

    LT
12. L

    UAB

What moved it, 2017

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−1.88
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.83

Game by game

• OUL 7-56 at OU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• RICEL 14-31 vs RICE51% → 2%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −52, Clock −1
• ARIZL 16-63 vs ARIZ4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• NMSUL 14-41 at NMSU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −12
• ARMYL 21-35 at ARMY6% → 2%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• WKUL 14-15 vs WKU13% → 18%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −22, Clock −3
• USML 0-24 at USM6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• UTSAL 14-31 vs UTSA11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• MTSUL 3-30 at MTSU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• UNTL 10-45 at UNT6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• LTL 21-42 vs LT14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• UABL 7-28 at UAB8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12

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.