UTSA

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0317th
  Defense+0.1728th
• 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.
  Offense38.8%14th
  Defense46.3%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1629th
  Defense+1.2533rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0649th
  Defense+0.0359th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0118th
  Defense+0.348th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.9%15th
  Defense52.4%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.0%13th
  Defense34.2%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8646th
  Defense2.7764th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%44th
  Defense24.8%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.6%21st
  Defense22.4%81st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2019

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
   UIW
2. L
   BAY
3. L
   ARMY
4. L
   UNT
5. W
   UTEP
6. L
   UAB
7. W
   RICE
8. L
   TA&M
9. W
   ODU
10. L
    USM
11. L
    FAU
12. L
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTSA.

Players, 2019

1. Lowell NarcisseQB223 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 85th of 228 QBs
   0.94WAR0.47 to 1.33
2. Sincere McCormickRB157 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 50th of 349 RBs
   0.53WAR0.40 to 0.64
3. Brenden BradyRB43 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 247th of 349 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
4. Carlos Strickland IIWR37 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 210th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
5. Jordan WeeksQB35 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 205th of 228 QBs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Lucas DeanP45 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 38th of 100 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Frank HarrisQB46 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 214th of 228 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.15
8. Sheldon JonesWR27 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 393rd of 439 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 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 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

What it had and what it did, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47147184th of 130Roster talent: 471, 84th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214287th of 130Recruiting: 142, 87th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%108th of 130Returning production: 39%, 108th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −23.7−23.7124th of 130SP+ rating: −23.7, 124th 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.09 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 RICEQ3 6:50 4th & 6 at UTSA 31, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.7 pts
2. vs RICEQ2 10:16 4th & 1 at UTSA 10, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at LTQ4 2:14 4th & 19 at LT 19, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at ODUQ2 2:31 4th & 2 at UTSA 29, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at LTQ2 5:07 4th & 1 at UTSA 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs USMQ4 1:20 4th & 10 at USM 10, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at UNTQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at UTSA 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ARMYQ2 4:50 4th & 2 at UTSA 38, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

33rd of 130 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

   UIW
2. L

   BAY
3. L

   ARMY
4. L

   UNT
5. W

   UTEP
6. L

   UAB
7. W

   RICE
8. L

   TA&M
9. W

   ODU
10. L

    USM
11. L

    FAU
12. L

    LT

What moved it, 2019

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+0.34
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.60

Game by game

• UIWW 35-7 vs UIW75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27
• BAYL 14-63 at BAY5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• ARMYL 13-31 vs ARMY13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• UNTL 3-45 at UNT10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• UTEPW 26-16 at UTEP47% → 97%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• UABL 14-33 vs UAB20% → 2%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• RICEW 31-27 vs RICE36% → 97%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +3
• TA&ML 14-45 at TA&M1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• ODUW 24-23 at ODU43% → 75%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Clock +5
• USML 17-36 vs USM10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• FAUL 26-40 vs FAU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• LTL 27-41 at LT7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12

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.