UTSA

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1357th
  Defense+0.0767th
• 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.
  Offense42.3%52nd
  Defense37.6%85th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3172nd
  Defense+1.3518th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0845th
  Defense+0.0943rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2554th
  Defense+0.1768th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%30th
  Defense45.1%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%78th
  Defense23.5%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0339th
  Defense2.8877th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%49th
  Defense18.8%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%78th
  Defense20.3%92nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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. L
   HOU
2. W
   TXST
3. L
   ARMY
4. L
   TENN
5. W
   TEM
6. W
   UAB
7. W
   FAU
8. W
   ECU
9. W
   UNT
10. W
    RICE
11. W
    USF
12. L
    TULN
13. W
    MRSH

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTSA.

Players, 2023

1. Frank HarrisQB371 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 27th of 250 QBs
   1.90WAR1.30 to 2.59
2. Kevorian BarnesRB141 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 77th of 383 RBs
   0.28WAR0.15 to 0.41
3. Robert Henry Jr.RB117 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 106th of 383 RBs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.34
4. Devin McCuinWR39 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 87th of 457 WRs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.27
5. Joshua CephusWR86 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 93rd of 457 WRs
   0.17WAR−0.01 to 0.38
6. Tykee Ogle-KelloggWR38 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 122nd of 457 WRs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.24
7. Rocko GriffinRB63 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 187th of 383 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
8. Lucas DeanP40 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 21st of 103 punters
   0.13WAR0.08 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57557574th of 130Roster talent: 575, 74th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16216273rd of 130Recruiting: 162, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%9th of 128Returning production: 85%, 9th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.4+5.447th of 130SP+ rating: +5.4, 47th 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, 2023

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.07 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 MRSHQ4 12:19 4th & 1 at UTSA 29, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at HOUQ2 1:26 4th & 8 at HOU 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
3. at FAUQ2 1:40 4th & 1 at UTSA 31, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at TULNQ4 11:01 4th & 4 at TULN 10, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at HOUQ4 10:56 4th & 10 at HOU 46, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at FAUQ4 7:25 4th & 4 at FAU 45, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at TULNQ2 14:08 4th & 2 at TULN 23, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at TULNQ4 1:33 4th & 5 at TULN 9, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

63rd of 133 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. L

   HOU
2. W

   TXST
3. L

   ARMY
4. L

   TENN
5. W

   TEM
6. W

   UAB
7. W

   FAU
8. W

   ECU
9. W

   UNT
10. W

    RICE
11. W

    USF
12. L

    TULN
13. W

    MRSH

What moved it, 2023

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+0.90
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.90

Game by game

• HOUL 14-17 at HOU56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• TXSTW 20-13 vs TXST86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• ARMYL 29-37 vs ARMY74% → 3%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −58, Clock −4
• TENNL 14-45 at TENN7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9
• TEMW 49-34 at TEM82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• UABW 41-20 vs UAB77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• FAUW 36-10 at FAU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +44
• ECUW 41-27 vs ECU91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14
• UNTW 37-29 at UNT74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• RICEW 34-14 vs RICE84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −1
• USFW 49-21 vs USF86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• TULNL 16-29 at TULN45% → 1%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• MRSHW 35-17 at MRSH77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +33, Clock +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.