UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.045th
  Defense+0.0763rd
• 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.
  Offense37.0%7th
  Defense39.7%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.147th
  Defense+1.3814th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.067th
  Defense+0.0463rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0113th
  Defense+0.1165th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%17th
  Defense44.9%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.8%5th
  Defense29.7%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8021st
  Defense2.8568th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%12th
  Defense20.2%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.4%7th
  Defense18.2%71st

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   NEB
2. L
   SUU
3. L
   LIB
4. L
   CSU
5. L
   SHSU
6. L
   WKU
7. W
   FIU
8. L
   LT
9. L
   MTSU
10. W
    KENN
11. L
    TENN
12. W
    NMSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2024

1. Skyler LocklearQB198 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 121st of 232 QBs
   0.58WAR0.20 to 0.95
2. Jevon JacksonRB150 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 66th of 373 RBs
   0.35WAR0.27 to 0.42
3. JP PicklesQB66 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 180th of 232 QBs
   0.20WAR0.09 to 0.31
4. Kam ThomasRB25 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 224th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
5. Kenny OdomWR27 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 154th of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
6. Cade McConnellQB53 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 209th of 232 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.01 to 0.19
7. Ezell JollyRB52 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 268th of 373 RBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
8. Buzz FlabianoPK12 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 89th of 114 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  456456121st of 131Roster talent: 456, 121st of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  101101123rd of 131Recruiting: 101, 123rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%110th of 130Returning production: 24%, 110th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −22.7−22.7127th of 131SP+ rating: −22.7, 127th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.12 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 KENNQ4 1:12 4th & 1 at UTEP 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. at NMSUQ4 4:33 4th & 1 at UTEP 47, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at LTQ3 2:02 4th & 4 at LT 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs FIUQ2 2:12 4th & 7 at FIU 39, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs SUUQ2 0:49 4th & 22 at SUU 37, up 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at LIBQ3 8:19 4th & 1 at UTEP 22, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs FIUQ3 10:00 4th & 4 at FIU 26, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at CSUQ1 2:50 4th & 3 at CSU 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

87th of 134 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

   NEB
2. L

   SUU
3. L

   LIB
4. L

   CSU
5. L

   SHSU
6. L

   WKU
7. W

   FIU
8. L

   LT
9. L

   MTSU
10. W

    KENN
11. L

    TENN
12. W

    NMSU

What moved it, 2024

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−0.62
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.29
• Timeouts−0.39
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• NEBL 7-40 at NEB4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −5
• SUUL 24-27 vs SUU68% → 27%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −20
• LIBL 10-28 at LIB5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −11, Clock +1
• CSUL 17-27 at CSU25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• SHSUL 21-41 vs SHSU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• WKUL 17-44 at WKU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• FIUW 30-21 vs FIU30% → 99%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +2
• LTL 10-14 at LT33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• MTSUL 13-20 vs MTSU52% → 15%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −4
• KENNW 43-35 vs KENN66% → 94%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −13
• TENNL 0-56 at TENN1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• NMSUW 42-35 at NMSU49% → 96%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3

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.