UTSA

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1347th
  Defense+0.0476th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%26th
  Defense34.5%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3791st
  Defense+1.551st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0844th
  Defense−0.0795th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1747th
  Defense+0.1453rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%26th
  Defense38.8%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.2%35th
  Defense26.9%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0347th
  Defense2.1299th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%25th
  Defense27.1%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%42nd
  Defense22.9%99th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   KENN
2. L
   TXST
3. L
   TEX
4. W
   HCU
5. L
   ECU
6. L
   RICE
7. W
   FAU
8. L
   TLSA
9. W
   MEM
10. W
    UNT
11. W
    TEM
12. L
    ARMY
13. W
    CCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTSA.

Players, 2024

1. Owen McCownQB458 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 47th of 232 QBs
   1.70WAR0.70 to 2.59
2. Robert Henry Jr.RB122 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 84th of 373 RBs
   0.31WAR0.22 to 0.40
3. Houston ThomasTE34 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 15th of 221 TEs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.23
4. Devin McCuinWR31 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 112th of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.20
5. Brandon High Jr.RB64 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 227th of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Tate SandellPK16 plays · +0.319 pts/play · 40th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
7. Kevorian BarnesRB54 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 269th of 373 RBs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Willie McCoy IIIWR28 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 224th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64464467th of 131Roster talent: 644, 67th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15715780th of 131Recruiting: 157, 80th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  33%33%92nd of 130Returning production: 33%, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.2+2.262nd of 131SP+ rating: +2.2, 62nd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.05 of the 0.10 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 CCUQ3 0:18 4th & 7 at CCU 11, down 27Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
2. vs CCUQ1 2:54 4th & 3 at CCU 8, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. at ECUQ4 9:07 4th & 3 at ECU 18, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at ECUQ4 6:29 4th & 6 at UTSA 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs UNTQ4 14:04 4th & 3 at UNT 17, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at TLSAQ3 2:10 4th & 2 at UTSA 35, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs MEMQ3 2:07 4th & 3 at UTSA 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at RICEQ3 0:45 4th & 3 at UTSA 36, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

74th of 134 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

   KENN
2. L

   TXST
3. L

   TEX
4. W

   HCU
5. L

   ECU
6. L

   RICE
7. W

   FAU
8. L

   TLSA
9. W

   MEM
10. W

    UNT
11. W

    TEM
12. L

    ARMY
13. W

    CCU

What moved it, 2024

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−0.53
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.05
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.29

Game by game

• KENNW 28-16 vs KENN94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts −1
• TXSTL 10-49 at TXST44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42
• TEXL 7-56 at TEX1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• HCUW 45-7 vs HCU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• ECUL 20-30 at ECU42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• RICEL 27-29 at RICE57% → 22%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position −3
• FAUW 38-24 vs FAU63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +37
• TLSAL 45-46 at TLSA68% → 5%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• MEMW 44-36 vs MEM27% → 99%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +2
• UNTW 48-27 vs UNT54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +44, Clock −1
• TEMW 51-27 vs TEM87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18, Clock −1
• ARMYL 24-29 at ARMY34% → 4%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −3
• CCUW 44-15 vs CCU60% → 0%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −58, 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.