UTSA

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1876th
  Defense+0.1048th
• 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.
  Offense45.5%75th
  Defense39.6%66th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3487th
  Defense+1.379th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1781st
  Defense+0.0841st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2466th
  Defense+0.1941st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.7%65th
  Defense45.8%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.6%85th
  Defense28.0%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8131st
  Defense2.8655th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%24th
  Defense18.3%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%39th
  Defense18.5%87th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   TA&M
2. L
   TXST
3. W
   UIW
4. W
   CSU
5. L
   TEM
6. W
   RICE
7. L
   UNT
8. W
   TULN
9. L
   USF
10. W
    CLT
11. W
    ECU
12. L
    ARMY
13. W
    FIU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UTSA.

Players, 2025

1. Owen McCownQB344 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 76th of 231 QBs
   1.15WAR0.47 to 1.87
2. Robert Henry Jr.RB141 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 40th of 365 RBs
   0.31WAR0.22 to 0.40
3. Will Henderson IIIRB100 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 105th of 365 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.26
4. Devin McCuinWR73 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 101st of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.03 to 0.31
5. Houston ThomasTE36 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 18th of 213 TEs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
6. AJ Wilson Jr.WR34 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 320th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.09
7. David Amador IIWR49 plays · +0.031 pts/play · 366th of 451 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.06 to 0.13
8. Dan DishmanTE7 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 178th of 213 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66266265th of 134Roster talent: 662, 65th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15215283rd of 134Recruiting: 152, 83rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%2nd of 132Returning production: 84%, 2nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.7+3.761st of 134SP+ rating: +3.7, 61st of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.10 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. at TEMQ4 1:31 4th & 20 at UTSA 15, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−9.3 pts
2. at TEMQ4 3:24 4th & 3 at UTSA 31, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
3. vs TXSTQ4 4:01 4th & 10 at UTSA 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs ARMYQ2 0:03 4th & 10 at ARMY 43, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at CLTQ2 0:07 4th & 6 at CLT 35, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs TXSTQ4 10:22 4th & 8 at UTSA 48, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at CSUQ3 0:07 4th & 4 at UTSA 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs RICEQ2 13:33 4th & 3 at UTSA 37, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

95th of 136 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

   TA&M
2. L

   TXST
3. W

   UIW
4. W

   CSU
5. L

   TEM
6. W

   RICE
7. L

   UNT
8. W

   TULN
9. L

   USF
10. W

    CLT
11. W

    ECU
12. L

    ARMY
13. W

    FIU

What moved it, 2025

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+0.57
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.61

Game by game

• TA&ML 24-42 at TA&M7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• TXSTL 36-43 vs TXST67% → 4%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• UIWW 48-20 vs UIW94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• CSUW 17-16 at CSU66% → 94%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• TEML 21-27 at TEM72% → 73%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +30, Clock +3
• RICEW 61-13 vs RICE79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24, Clock −1
• UNTL 17-55 at UNT46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −46, Clock +1
• TULNW 48-26 vs TULN42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +1
• USFL 23-55 at USF20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• CLTW 28-7 at CLT92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• ECUW 58-24 vs ECU47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +48, Possession & field position +1
• ARMYL 24-27 vs ARMY80% → 5%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• FIUW 57-20 vs FIU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30

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.