Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1341st
  Defense+0.2415th
• 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.
  Offense37.3%9th
  Defense45.8%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3696th
  Defense+1.2627th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0843rd
  Defense+0.1243rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1841st
  Defense+0.425th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.0%3rd
  Defense49.5%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%37th
  Defense37.9%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7232nd
  Defense2.8157th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%69th
  Defense18.9%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.0%99th
  Defense2.6%79th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Wyoming 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
   MONT
2. W
   AF
3. L
   ORE
4. W
   FAU
5. L
   MSU
6. L
   HAW
7. L
   SJSU
8. L
   CSU
9. W
   FRES
10. L
    USU
11. L
    BOIS
12. L
    UNM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2014

1. Colby KirkegaardQB285 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 93rd of 199 QBs
   1.14WAR0.73 to 1.59
2. Brian HillRB116 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 76th of 350 RBs
   0.28WAR0.17 to 0.39
3. Shaun WickRB93 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 172nd of 350 RBs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
4. Jalen ClaiborneWR46 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 139th of 469 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
5. Dominic RufranWR41 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 176th of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Tanner GentryWR36 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 193rd of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Stuart WilliamsPK13 plays · +0.425 pts/play · 63rd of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. Ethan WoodPK46 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 89th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.14

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 Wyoming'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Wyoming'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 0.19 of the 0.24 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 SJSUQ4 4:10 4th & 2 at SJSU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.8 pts
2. vs FAUQ4 2:16 4th & 22 at WYO 11, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.1 pts
3. at HAWQ3 10:24 4th & 1 at WYO 30, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
4. at HAWQ4 7:41 4th & 3 at HAW 34, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs FAUQ4 8:14 4th & 6 at WYO 49, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs MONTQ4 0:39 4th & 15 at MONT 15, up 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
7. vs AFQ3 11:31 4th & 3 at WYO 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs USUQ2 0:00 4th & 7 at WYO 26, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

44th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Wyoming's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MONT
2. W

   AF
3. L

   ORE
4. W

   FAU
5. L

   MSU
6. L

   HAW
7. L

   SJSU
8. L

   CSU
9. W

   FRES
10. L

    USU
11. L

    BOIS
12. L

    UNM

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Wyoming'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−0.46
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• MONTW 17-12 vs MONT61% → 91%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• AFW 17-13 vs AF48% → 81%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +21, Clock +2
• OREL 14-48 at ORE1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• FAUW 20-19 vs FAU56% → 75%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +3
• MSUL 14-56 at MSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• HAWL 28-38 at HAW35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• SJSUL 20-27 vs SJSU50% → 23%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −20
• CSUL 31-45 at CSU7% → 2%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −12
• FRESW 45-17 at FRES22% → 100%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +69, Clock +2
• USUL 3-20 vs USU35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• BOISL 14-63 vs BOIS12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• UNML 30-36 at UNM29% → 4%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Wyoming's side.

Closest call

APP 19-22 WYO (2023) - Wyoming dropped to a 2.5% win probability before pulling it out.