Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1564th
  Defense+0.1338th
• 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.
  Offense42.7%40th
  Defense42.1%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3087th
  Defense+1.366th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0954th
  Defense+0.0943rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2572nd
  Defense+0.2134th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%37th
  Defense47.3%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.2%54th
  Defense32.0%68th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9750th
  Defense2.9650th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%51st
  Defense19.7%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%70th
  Defense16.9%59th

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, 2016

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
   NIU
2. L
   NEB
3. W
   UCD
4. L
   EMU
5. W
   CSU
6. W
   AF
7. W
   NEV
8. W
   BOIS
9. W
   USU
10. L
    UNLV
11. W
    SDSU
12. L
    UNM
13. L
    SDSU
14. L
    BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2016

1. Josh AllenQB422 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 18th of 218 QBs
   2.08WAR1.40 to 2.80
2. Brian HillRB271 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 6th of 347 RBs
   0.97WAR0.64 to 1.27
3. Tanner GentryWR110 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 7th of 417 WRs
   0.41WAR0.24 to 0.59
4. Ethan WoodPK59 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 11th of 116 kickers
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.31
5. Cooper RothePK16 plays · +0.356 pts/play · 50th of 116 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Jake MaulhardtWR59 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 220th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
7. Shaun WickRB64 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 243rd of 347 RBs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Jacob HollisterTE35 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 8th of 195 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.12

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

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  316316123rd of 128Roster talent: 316, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  102102117th of 128Recruiting: 102, 117th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%55th of 128Returning production: 71%, 55th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.9−6.995th of 128SP+ rating: −6.9, 95th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.18 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 UNMQ2 7:22 4th & 1 at WYO 34, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. vs USUQ2 1:44 4th & 1 at WYO 36, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs BOISQ3 6:25 4th & 2 at WYO 30, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs SDSUQ4 0:34 4th & 20 at WYO 14, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
5. vs BYUQ2 11:13 4th & 3 at BYU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs USUQ4 11:30 4th & 3 at USU 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs AFQ3 13:00 4th & 5 at AF 40, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs BOISQ4 1:55 4th & 7 at WYO 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

17th 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. Based on 13 of 14 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   NIU
2. L

   NEB
3. W

   UCD
4. L

   EMU
5. W

   CSU
6. W

   AF
7. W

   NEV
8. W

   BOIS
9. W

   USU
10. L

    UNLV
11. W

    SDSU
12. L

    UNM
13. L

    SDSU
14. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2016

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
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.12

Game by game

• NIUW 40-34 vs NIU24% → 85%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts −25
• NEBL 17-52 at NEB5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• UCDW 45-22 vs UCD92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• EMUL 24-27 at EMU58% → 12%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• CSUW 38-17 at CSU35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• AFW 35-26 vs AF19% → 96%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• BOISW 30-28 vs BOIS18% → 91%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +2
• USUW 52-28 vs USU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +1
• UNLVL 66-69 at UNLV73% → 21%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +25
• SDSUW 34-33 vs SDSU31% → 69%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +9, Possession & field position −2
• UNML 35-56 at UNM53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −1
• SDSUL 24-27 vs SDSU32% → 5%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• BYUL 21-24 vs BYU28% → 7%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −37, Clock −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.