UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0732nd
  Defense+0.1918th
• 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.
  Offense39.7%25th
  Defense43.4%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2649th
  Defense+1.2836th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0220th
  Defense+0.217th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2247th
  Defense+0.2344th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%21st
  Defense49.2%27th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%42nd
  Defense31.1%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0741st
  Defense3.3514th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%27th
  Defense16.5%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%51st
  Defense15.2%27th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   JXST
2. W
   UIW
3. L
   NU
4. L
   ARIZ
5. L
   UNLV
6. L
   LT
7. W
   FIU
8. L
   NMSU
9. W
   SHSU
10. L
    WKU
11. L
    MTSU
12. L
    LIB

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2023

1. Cade McConnellQB154 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 136th of 250 QBs
   0.44WAR0.08 to 0.80
2. Kelly AkharaiyiWR51 plays · +0.355 pts/play · 13th of 457 WRs
   0.34WAR0.19 to 0.49
3. Deion HankinsRB128 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 62nd of 383 RBs
   0.32WAR0.20 to 0.46
4. Torrance Burgess Jr.RB115 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 84th of 383 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.36
5. Gavin HardisonQB118 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 172nd of 250 QBs
   0.27WAR0.03 to 0.51
6. Joshua SloanP47 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 2nd of 103 punters
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.32
7. Jeremiah BallardWR34 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 130th of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.20
8. Zach FryarTE10 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 173rd of 212 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  380380114th of 130Roster talent: 380, 114th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8888124th of 130Recruiting: 88, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%61st of 128Returning production: 54%, 61st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.2−16.2119th of 130SP+ rating: −16.2, 119th 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, 2023

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.21 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 JXSTQ4 1:15 4th & 1 at JXST 24, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.4 pts
2. vs LTQ4 3:57 4th & 14 at LT 21, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
3. at FIUQ4 14:14 4th & 1 at FIU 16, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs LTQ3 4:50 4th & 1 at UTEP 21, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs NMSUQ2 1:31 4th & 1 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at FIUQ4 5:24 4th & 3 at FIU 3, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs LTQ4 1:51 4th & 5 at LT 20, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
8. vs WKUQ4 0:57 4th & 11 at WKU 14, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

116th of 133 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

   JXST
2. W

   UIW
3. L

   NU
4. L

   ARIZ
5. L

   UNLV
6. L

   LT
7. W

   FIU
8. L

   NMSU
9. W

   SHSU
10. L

    WKU
11. L

    MTSU
12. L

    LIB

What moved it, 2023

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−1.98
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.39

Game by game

• JXSTL 14-17 at JXST57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3
• UIWW 28-14 vs UIW74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• NUL 7-38 at NU41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• ARIZL 10-31 at ARIZ8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12
• UNLVL 28-45 vs UNLV54% → 3%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −55, Clock −1
• LTL 10-24 vs LT46% → 4%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −51, Clock −2
• FIUW 27-14 at FIU41% → 99%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• NMSUL 7-28 vs NMSU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• SHSUW 37-34 at SHSU37% → 85%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +42, Clock +4
• WKUL 13-21 vs WKU27% → 3%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• MTSUL 30-34 at MTSU30% → 5%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• LIBL 28-42 vs LIB13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: 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.