UTEP

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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−0.181st
  Defense+0.286th
• 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.
  Offense31.4%1st
  Defense50.0%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3381st
  Defense+1.2349th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.134th
  Defense+0.1230th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.133rd
  Defense+0.551st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.4%5th
  Defense54.5%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense17.9%1st
  Defense37.8%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.455th
  Defense2.9642nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.8%4th
  Defense20.0%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.9%1st
  Defense12.9%15th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   OU
2. W
   TXSO
3. L
   MICH
4. L
   ORST
5. L
   UNM
6. L
   NEV

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTEP.

Players, 2026

1. Raymond Moore IIIQB34 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 151st of 192 QBs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
2. EJ Colson Jr.QB54 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 169th of 192 QBs
   0.04WAR−0.13 to 0.19
3. Kam ThomasRB11 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 265th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
4. Lamar SperlingRB3 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 297th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  586586102nd of 138Roster talent: 586, 102nd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615695th of 138Recruiting: 156, 95th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  -1%-1%134th of 136Returning production: -1%, 134th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −24.6−24.6134th of 138SP+ rating so far: −24.6, 134th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.01 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 NEVQ4 13:51 4th & 5 at UTEP 34, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
2. vs NEVQ3 2:04 4th & 7 at NEV 47, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
3. vs ORSTQ2 5:57 4th & 3 at UTEP 40, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
4. vs TXSOQ1 3:39 4th & 2 at UTEP 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. at OUQ4 7:41 4th & 9 at UTEP 30, down 51Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts
6. at OUQ3 1:25 4th & 3 at UTEP 32, down 44Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts
7. at MICHQ4 1:53 4th & 4 at UTEP 31, down 35Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts
8. vs NEVQ4 2:11 4th & 12 at UTEP 46, down 23Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

97th of 138 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

   OU
2. W

   TXSO
3. L

   MICH
4. L

   ORST
5. L

   UNM
6. L

   NEV

What moved it, 2026

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−0.64
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• OUL 0-51 at OU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• TXSOW 51-10 vs TXSO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +5
• MICHL 17-52 at MICH1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• ORSTL 7-33 vs ORST20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• UNML 7-61 at UNM6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• NEVL 13-30 vs NEV23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −31, 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.