UTSA

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0210th
  Defense+0.1072nd
• 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.
  Offense36.3%8th
  Defense37.7%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1636th
  Defense+1.2626th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0116th
  Defense−0.0285th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0513th
  Defense+0.2726th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.1%4th
  Defense40.3%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%18th
  Defense33.1%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.4410th
  Defense2.3992nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.0%13th
  Defense19.3%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.5%21st
  Defense1.5%19th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 UTSA 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. W
   HOU
2. L
   ARIZ
3. L
   OKST
4. L
   FAU
5. L
   UNM
6. W
   FIU
7. L
   LT
8. L
   UTEP
9. L
   RICE
10. W
    USM
11. L
    WKU
12. W
    UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTSA.

Players, 2014

1. Tucker CarterQB209 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 114th of 199 QBs
   0.84WAR0.51 to 1.19
2. David Glasco IIRB138 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 56th of 350 RBs
   0.32WAR0.21 to 0.44
3. Jarveon WilliamsRB67 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 132nd of 350 RBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.24
4. Kristian SternP76 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 19th of 94 punters
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.25
5. Sean IannoPK18 plays · +0.396 pts/play · 32nd of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Blake BogenschutzQB42 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 180th of 199 QBs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.18
7. Kam JonesWR50 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 357th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.09
8. Aaron GrubbWR31 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 357th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08

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 UTSA'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 UTSA's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.17 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 UNTQ3 5:13 4th & 1 at UTSA 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs UNTQ4 8:29 4th & 2 at UTSA 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs FIUQ3 8:08 4th & 2 at FIU 25, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs UNTQ4 12:12 4th & 7 at UNT 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs UNMQ2 0:36 4th & 1 at UNM 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs USMQ4 10:14 4th & 4 at USM 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs ARIZQ2 4:43 4th & 2 at UTSA 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs UNMQ2 11:02 4th & 1 at UTSA 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

117th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up UTSA's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   HOU
2. L

   ARIZ
3. L

   OKST
4. L

   FAU
5. L

   UNM
6. W

   FIU
7. L

   LT
8. L

   UTEP
9. L

   RICE
10. W

    USM
11. L

    WKU
12. W

    UNT

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at UTSA'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−1.42
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.12

Game by game

• HOUW 27-7 at HOU17% → 100%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +67, Clock +5
• ARIZL 23-26 vs ARIZ23% → 16%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −2
• OKSTL 13-43 at OKST15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• FAUL 37-41 at FAU58% → 26%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position +5
• UNML 9-21 vs UNM86% → 3%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −62, Clock −1
• FIUW 16-13 vs FIU77% → 85%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +2
• LTL 20-27 at LT31% → 5%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• UTEPL 0-34 vs UTEP73% → 0%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −66, Clock −1
• RICEL 7-17 at RICE28% → 3%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• USMW 12-10 vs USM76% → 95%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +26
• WKUL 7-45 at WKU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32
• UNTW 34-27 vs UNT67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from UTSA's side.

Closest call

CCU 15-44 UTSA (2024) - UTSA dropped to a 0.0% win probability before pulling it out.