UTSA

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1146th
  Defense+0.0960th
• 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.
  Offense39.7%28th
  Defense41.2%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3583rd
  Defense+1.2455th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1163rd
  Defense+0.0749th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1137th
  Defense+0.1269th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.8%20th
  Defense45.0%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.
  Offense30.5%41st
  Defense33.6%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0568th
  Defense2.8854th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%75th
  Defense20.8%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.7%83rd
  Defense18.3%75th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   TXST
2. W
   SFA
3. W
   MTSU
4. L
   UAB
5. L
   BYU
6. L
   ARMY
7. W
   LT
8. L
   FAU
9. W
   UTEP
10. W
    USM
11. W
    UNT
12. L
    UL

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTSA.

Players, 2020

1. Sincere McCormickRB214 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 2nd of 338 RBs
   0.91WAR0.70 to 1.09
2. Frank HarrisQB230 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 70th of 212 QBs
   0.53WAR0.07 to 1.00
3. Lowell NarcisseQB75 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 121st of 212 QBs
   0.23WAR0.09 to 0.36
4. Zakhari FranklinWR63 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 36th of 409 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.25
5. Brenden BradyRB47 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 219th of 338 RBs
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.17
6. Joshua CephusWR58 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 89th of 409 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.18
7. Hunter DuplessisPK16 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 14th of 97 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Brennon DingleWR30 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 314th of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45845882nd of 127Roster talent: 458, 82nd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714786th of 127Recruiting: 147, 86th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%17th of 127Returning production: 84%, 17th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.6−9.6105th of 127SP+ rating: −9.6, 105th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.10 of the 0.15 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 ULQ4 13:32 4th & 3 at UL 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. at UABQ4 8:48 4th & 17 at UAB 40, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
3. at TXSTQ2 7:32 4th & 1 at UTSA 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs ARMYQ4 12:47 4th & 10 at ARMY 10, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
5. at USMQ4 10:19 4th & 4 at UTSA 29, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs ARMYQ4 3:47 4th & 4 at ARMY 22, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
7. at USMQ2 1:32 4th & 2 at UTSA 43, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs ULQ2 13:02 4th & 2 at UL 24, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

15th of 127 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

   TXST
2. W

   SFA
3. W

   MTSU
4. L

   UAB
5. L

   BYU
6. L

   ARMY
7. W

   LT
8. L

   FAU
9. W

   UTEP
10. W

    USM
11. W

    UNT
12. L

    UL

What moved it, 2020

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+0.78
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.17
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• TXSTW 51-48 at TXST36% → 88%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +19
• SFAW 24-10 vs SFA89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +15
• MTSUW 37-35 vs MTSU67% → 89%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• UABL 13-21 at UAB9% → 3%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −14
• BYUL 20-27 at BYU2% → 3%Before kickoff −48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −7
• ARMYL 16-28 vs ARMY31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• LTW 27-26 vs LT47% → 83%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +3
• FAUL 3-24 at FAU42% → 1%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −41
• UTEPW 52-21 vs UTEP73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28
• USMW 23-20 at USM74% → 88%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +32, Clock +3
• UNTW 49-17 vs UNT56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts −1
• ULL 24-31 vs UL18% → 4%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2

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.