UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1040th
  Defense+0.1441st
• 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.
  Offense38.3%15th
  Defense44.0%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2966th
  Defense+1.1974th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0222nd
  Defense−0.1093rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2461st
  Defense+0.415th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.6%10th
  Defense49.8%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.2%54th
  Defense32.5%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6726th
  Defense2.7369th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%48th
  Defense20.3%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%46th
  Defense16.4%48th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   SFA
2. L
   TEX
3. W
   ACU
4. W
   ULM
5. L
   LT
6. L
   CLT
7. L
   UTSA
8. L
   UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2020

1. Deion HankinsRB90 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 94th of 338 RBs
   0.32WAR0.25 to 0.38
2. Gavin HardisonQB115 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 118th of 212 QBs
   0.24WAR0.03 to 0.44
3. Calvin BrownholtzQB45 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 146th of 212 QBs
   0.15WAR0.03 to 0.29
4. Jacob CowingWR41 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 113th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
5. Justin GarrettWR30 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 119th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
6. Josh FieldsRB32 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 252nd of 338 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
7. Gavin BaechlePK5 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 83rd of 97 kickers
   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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  297297111th of 127Roster talent: 297, 111th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  109109126th of 127Recruiting: 109, 126th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%118th of 127Returning production: 27%, 118th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.6−18.6123rd of 127SP+ rating: −18.6, 123rd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.01 of the 0.03 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 CLTQ3 2:05 4th & 1 at UTEP 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at UTSAQ1 0:00 4th & 3 at UTSA 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at ULMQ3 6:05 4th & 2 at ULM 14, up 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at CLTQ4 11:34 4th & 6 at UTEP 34, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs SFAQ1 3:25 4th & 4 at SFA 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs ACUQ1 6:53 4th & 6 at ACU 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at TEXQ1 12:56 4th & 1 at UTEP 26, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at ULMQ4 5:49 4th & 7 at ULM 29, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

47th of 127 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

   SFA
2. L

   TEX
3. W

   ACU
4. W

   ULM
5. L

   LT
6. L

   CLT
7. L

   UTSA
8. L

   UNT

What moved it, 2020

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+0.14
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• SFAW 24-14 vs SFA62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• TEXL 3-59 at TEX0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• ACUW 17-13 vs ACU72% → 93%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• ULMW 31-6 at ULM23% → 100%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +70
• LTL 17-21 at LT14% → 9%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −2
• CLTL 28-38 at CLT10% → 3%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −16
• UTSAL 21-52 at UTSA27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −28
• UNTL 43-45 vs UNT70% → 6%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −52, 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.