UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0631st
  Defense+0.1242nd
• 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.
  Offense41.6%44th
  Defense42.2%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2447th
  Defense+1.389th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0845th
  Defense−0.0695th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1322nd
  Defense+0.407th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%55th
  Defense46.9%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%29th
  Defense32.6%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3786th
  Defense3.0055th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.6%75th
  Defense18.1%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%59th
  Defense18.3%78th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   UNT
2. L
   OU
3. W
   NMSU
4. L
   UNM
5. W
   BOIS
6. W
   CLT
7. L
   LT
8. W
   FAU
9. L
   MTSU
10. L
    RICE
11. W
    FIU
12. L
    UTSA

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2022

1. Gavin HardisonQB281 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 94th of 234 QBs
   0.82WAR0.31 to 1.36
2. Calvin BrownholtzQB62 plays · +0.420 pts/play · 124th of 234 QBs
   0.49WAR0.35 to 0.64
3. Ronald AwattRB140 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 93rd of 384 RBs
   0.30WAR0.17 to 0.44
4. Deion HankinsRB122 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 158th of 384 RBs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.32
5. Reynaldo FloresRB48 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 165th of 384 RBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
6. Tyrin SmithWR66 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 72nd of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.04 to 0.31
7. Gavin BaechlePK20 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 17th of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
8. Joshua SloanP39 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 33rd of 102 punters
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  289289124th of 129Roster talent: 289, 124th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9696125th of 129Recruiting: 96, 125th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%58th of 128Returning production: 62%, 58th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.7−10.797th of 129SP+ rating: −10.7, 97th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.05 of the 0.14 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 RICEQ3 10:22 4th & 1 at UTEP 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs FAUQ2 5:41 4th & 1 at UTEP 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at UNMQ2 0:50 4th & 17 at UNM 33, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
4. vs BOISQ3 3:01 4th & 4 at BOIS 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at CLTQ4 1:26 4th & 1 at UTEP 22, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at CLTQ2 8:03 4th & 3 at CLT 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at LTQ3 1:40 4th & 11 at LT 14, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at RICEQ2 12:06 4th & 2 at RICE 29, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

79th of 131 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

   UNT
2. L

   OU
3. W

   NMSU
4. L

   UNM
5. W

   BOIS
6. W

   CLT
7. L

   LT
8. W

   FAU
9. L

   MTSU
10. L

    RICE
11. W

    FIU
12. L

    UTSA

What moved it, 2022

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−0.68
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.21

Game by game

• UNTL 13-31 vs UNT46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• OUL 13-45 at OU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• NMSUW 20-13 vs NMSU88% → 91%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts −2
• UNML 10-27 at UNM57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −47
• BOISW 27-10 vs BOIS13% → 99%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +86: Scoreboard +53, Possession & field position +1
• CLTW 41-35 at CLT57% → 87%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• LTL 31-41 at LT48% → 2%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• FAUW 24-21 vs FAU40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• MTSUL 13-24 vs MTSU57% → 2%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• RICEL 30-37 at RICE43% → 7%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −2
• FIUW 40-6 vs FIU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• UTSAL 31-34 at UTSA12% → 4%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position −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.