UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1957th
  Defense+0.0974th
• 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.
  Offense38.4%14th
  Defense39.1%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4898th
  Defense+1.2746th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0317th
  Defense+0.0187th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4698th
  Defense+0.2054th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%14th
  Defense46.0%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.7%25th
  Defense25.1%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.719th
  Defense2.7287th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%11th
  Defense21.7%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.8%15th
  Defense17.4%64th

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, 2021

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. W
   BCU
3. L
   BOIS
4. W
   UNM
5. W
   ODU
6. W
   USM
7. W
   LT
8. L
   FAU
9. L
   UTSA
10. L
    UNT
11. W
    RICE
12. L
    UAB
13. L
    FRES

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2021

1. Gavin HardisonQB309 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 65th of 219 QBs
   1.40WAR0.88 to 2.00
2. Ronald AwattRB136 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 84th of 387 RBs
   0.44WAR0.31 to 0.57
3. Deion HankinsRB110 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 151st of 387 RBs
   0.31WAR0.21 to 0.43
4. Jacob CowingWR73 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 24th of 474 WRs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.38
5. Justin GarrettWR48 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 122nd of 474 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
6. Gavin BaechlePK21 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 73rd of 128 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Calvin BrownholtzQB18 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 203rd of 219 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16
8. Joshua SloanP52 plays · +0.039 pts/play · 85th of 101 punters
   0.04WAR−0.07 to 0.15

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  319319121st of 130Roster talent: 319, 121st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  103103127th of 130Recruiting: 103, 127th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  105%105%4th of 128Returning production: 105%, 4th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.2−4.291st of 130SP+ rating: −4.2, 91st 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, 2021

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 of the 0.27 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 UNMQ4 2:56 4th & 1 at UNM 27, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
2. vs RICEQ4 2:31 4th & 10 at RICE 35, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.4 pts
3. vs UNMQ4 9:52 4th & 1 at UTEP 35, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
4. at UNTQ2 2:11 4th & 1 at UTEP 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. vs ODUQ4 1:23 4th & 10 at ODU 36, up 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
6. at USMQ2 0:27 4th & 7 at USM 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. at USMQ3 4:29 4th & 2 at UTEP 9, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs LTQ3 0:38 4th & 3 at LT 24, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

27th 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. W

   NMSU
2. W

   BCU
3. L

   BOIS
4. W

   UNM
5. W

   ODU
6. W

   USM
7. W

   LT
8. L

   FAU
9. L

   UTSA
10. L

    UNT
11. W

    RICE
12. L

    UAB
13. L

    FRES

What moved it, 2021

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+0.78
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.16

Game by game

• NMSUW 30-3 at NMSU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• BCUW 38-28 vs BCU90% → 92%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position −1
• BOISL 13-54 at BOIS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• UNMW 20-13 vs UNM42% → 90%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• ODUW 28-21 vs ODU61% → 77%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position +1
• USMW 26-13 at USM59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• LTW 19-3 vs LT37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +1
• FAUL 25-28 at FAU22% → 12%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −2
• UTSAL 23-44 vs UTSA20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• UNTL 17-20 at UNT49% → 4%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• RICEW 38-28 vs RICE76% → 87%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position +3
• UABL 25-42 at UAB20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24
• FRESL 24-31 at FRES16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2

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.