UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.101st
  Defense+0.0664th
• 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.
  Offense33.0%1st
  Defense39.3%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4699th
  Defense+1.2164th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0122nd
  Defense−0.0385th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.112nd
  Defense+0.1944th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense37.4%1st
  Defense45.1%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.3%8th
  Defense27.2%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.142nd
  Defense2.6384th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.0%9th
  Defense22.5%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%10th
  Defense15.7%50th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   USU
2. W
   UTM
3. L
   TEX
4. L
   ULM
5. L
   LT
6. L
   LIB
7. W
   SHSU
8. L
   KENN
9. L
   JXST
10. L
    MOST
11. L
    NMSU
12. L
    DEL

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2025

1. Skyler LocklearQB261 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 84th of 231 QBs
   1.00WAR0.50 to 1.46
2. Ashten EmoryRB103 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 107th of 365 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.26
3. Wondame Davis Jr.WR39 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 77th of 451 WRs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.29
4. Malachi NelsonQB147 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 172nd of 231 QBs
   0.18WAR−0.12 to 0.50
5. Noah BotsfordPK53 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 6th of 112 kickers
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
6. Josh SchuchtsTE22 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 43rd of 213 TEs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. Hahsaun WilsonRB42 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 265th of 365 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Tanner CragunPK8 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 99th of 112 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  552552101st of 134Roster talent: 552, 101st of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130109th of 134Recruiting: 130, 109th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%7th of 132Returning production: 72%, 7th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.5−17.5127th of 134SP+ rating: −17.5, 127th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.04 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 NMSUQ3 0:06 4th & 4 at NMSU 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. vs LIBQ2 4:58 4th & 2 at UTEP 28, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at USUQ1 0:41 4th & 2 at UTEP 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs NMSUQ2 1:00 4th & 3 at UTEP 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs LTQ4 9:24 4th & 7 at UTEP 28, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs UTMQ2 2:08 4th & 6 at UTEP 44, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs NMSUQ2 5:23 4th & 3 at UTEP 25, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at TEXQ2 5:57 4th & 1 at UTEP 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

135th of 136 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

   USU
2. W

   UTM
3. L

   TEX
4. L

   ULM
5. L

   LT
6. L

   LIB
7. W

   SHSU
8. L

   KENN
9. L

   JXST
10. L

    MOST
11. L

    NMSU
12. L

    DEL

What moved it, 2025

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−3.55
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.12
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.05

Game by game

• USUL 16-28 at USU43% → 4%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −63, Timeouts +23
• UTMW 42-17 vs UTM79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25
• TEXL 10-27 at TEX1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• ULML 25-31 vs ULM69% → 3%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• LTL 11-30 vs LT46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −3
• LIBL 8-19 vs LIB53% → 3%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• SHSUW 35-17 at SHSU66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• KENNL 20-33 at KENN30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• JXSTL 27-30 vs JXST56% → 7%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• MOSTL 24-38 at MOST38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• NMSUL 31-34 vs NMSU68% → 10%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• DELL 31-61 at DEL43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −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.