UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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−0.092nd
  Defense+0.1628th
• 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.
  Offense36.9%5th
  Defense43.9%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2150th
  Defense+1.1954th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0022nd
  Defense+0.1425th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.162nd
  Defense+0.2132nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.6%11th
  Defense49.1%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.2%6th
  Defense32.7%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.456th
  Defense2.9934th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.7%8th
  Defense19.5%49th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.1%2nd
  Defense14.6%21st

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, 2018

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
   NAU
2. L
   UNLV
3. L
   TENN
4. L
   NMSU
5. L
   UTSA
6. L
   UNT
7. L
   LT
8. L
   UAB
9. W
   RICE
10. L
    MTSU
11. L
    WKU
12. L
    USM

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2018

1. Kai LocksleyQB168 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 129th of 225 QBs
   0.60WAR0.18 to 0.96
2. Quardraiz WadleyRB94 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 119th of 351 RBs
   0.34WAR0.27 to 0.43
3. Ryan MetzQB67 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 178th of 225 QBs
   0.22WAR0.08 to 0.36
4. Treyvon HughesRB56 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 228th of 351 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.22
5. Brandon JonesQB69 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 191st of 225 QBs
   0.17WAR0.03 to 0.32
6. Warren RedixWR31 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 240th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Josh FieldsRB20 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 280th of 351 RBs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.07
8. Terry JunielWR30 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 336th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.09

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  346346118th of 130Roster talent: 346, 118th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9191126th of 130Recruiting: 91, 126th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%120th of 129Returning production: 27%, 120th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −26.6−26.6130th of 130SP+ rating: −26.6, 130th of 130 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, 2018

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 2 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 NMSUQ2 9:24 4th & 1 at NMSU 6, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs NMSUQ4 3:24 4th & 26 at UTEP 27, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
3. at RICEQ4 0:08 4th & 4 at RICE 43, up 8Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at LTQ2 6:34 4th & 4 at LT 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs UNTQ3 3:27 4th & 7 at UNT 35, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs UNTQ4 1:41 4th & 17 at UTEP 24, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at TENNQ2 1:53 4th & 1 at UTEP 22, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs MTSUQ4 3:13 4th & 18 at UTEP 43, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

119th 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

   NAU
2. L

   UNLV
3. L

   TENN
4. L

   NMSU
5. L

   UTSA
6. L

   UNT
7. L

   LT
8. L

   UAB
9. W

   RICE
10. L

    MTSU
11. L

    WKU
12. L

    USM

What moved it, 2018

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−2.07
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.85

Game by game

• NAUL 10-30 vs NAU36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• UNLVL 24-52 at UNLV6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• TENNL 0-24 at TENN2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• NMSUL 20-27 vs NMSU37% → 6%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• UTSAL 21-30 at UTSA26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position +1
• UNTL 24-27 vs UNT4% → 8%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard −14, Clock −1
• LTL 24-31 at LT7% → 4%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• UABL 0-19 vs UAB13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −22
• RICEW 34-26 at RICE51% → 96%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• MTSUL 32-48 vs MTSU16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• WKUL 16-40 at WKU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• USML 7-39 vs USM17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, 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.