UTSA

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2478th
  Defense+0.1636th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%69th
  Defense42.8%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2958th
  Defense+1.3328th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1355th
  Defense+0.0861st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3889th
  Defense+0.2924th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%56th
  Defense48.5%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.2%82nd
  Defense31.0%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1863rd
  Defense3.0350th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%44th
  Defense18.6%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.7%86th
  Defense18.3%79th

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, 2021

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
   ILL
2. W
   LAM
3. W
   MTSU
4. W
   MEM
5. W
   UNLV
6. W
   WKU
7. W
   RICE
8. W
   LT
9. W
   UTEP
10. W
    USM
11. W
    UAB
12. L
    UNT
13. W
    WKU
14. L
    SDSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTSA.

Players, 2021

1. Frank HarrisQB424 plays · +0.298 pts/play · 17th of 219 QBs
   2.36WAR1.48 to 3.28
2. Sincere McCormickRB271 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 3rd of 387 RBs
   1.20WAR0.96 to 1.48
3. Zakhari FranklinWR103 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 21st of 474 WRs
   0.31WAR0.18 to 0.43
4. Joshua CephusWR74 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 46th of 474 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.31
5. De'Corian ClarkWR58 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 70th of 474 WRs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.26
6. Brenden BradyRB54 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 224th of 387 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.23
7. Lucas DeanP35 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 22nd of 101 punters
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
8. Hunter DuplessisPK20 plays · +0.362 pts/play · 10th of 128 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50950978th of 130Roster talent: 509, 78th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14814885th of 130Recruiting: 148, 85th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  95%95%14th of 128Returning production: 95%, 14th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.5+6.558th of 130SP+ rating: +6.5, 58th 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, 2021

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.05 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. at MEMQ3 11:20 4th & 3 at MEM 44, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. vs UABQ3 6:33 4th & 6 at UAB 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at WKUQ2 4:47 4th & 7 at UTSA 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at ILLQ2 6:24 4th & 3 at ILL 15, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at WKUQ3 2:18 4th & 5 at WKU 46, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at UNTQ1 5:05 4th & 2 at UNT 12, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs USMQ3 6:48 4th & 5 at USM 30, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs RICEQ2 8:22 4th & 4 at RICE 42, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

14th 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

   ILL
2. W

   LAM
3. W

   MTSU
4. W

   MEM
5. W

   UNLV
6. W

   WKU
7. W

   RICE
8. W

   LT
9. W

   UTEP
10. W

    USM
11. W

    UAB
12. L

    UNT
13. W

    WKU
14. L

    SDSU

What moved it, 2021

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+2.38
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.77

Game by game

• ILLW 37-30 at ILL38% → 91%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• LAMW 54-0 vs LAM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• MTSUW 27-13 vs MTSU83% → 98%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −1
• MEMW 31-28 at MEM49% → 93%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• UNLVW 24-17 vs UNLV93% → 98%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +13
• WKUW 52-46 at WKU53% → 94%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• RICEW 45-0 vs RICE90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• LTW 45-16 at LT71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position −1
• UTEPW 44-23 at UTEP80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• USMW 27-17 vs USM98% → 95%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +7
• UABW 34-31 vs UAB67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• UNTL 23-45 at UNT76% → 0%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −55, Clock −1
• WKUW 49-41 vs WKU53% → 94%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• SDSUL 24-38 at SDSU43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −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.