Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense−0.0797th
• 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.
  Offense39.3%14th
  Defense39.5%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0813th
  Defense+1.0593rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.114th
  Defense−0.1093rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1343rd
  Defense−0.0291st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.2%39th
  Defense44.8%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.7%3rd
  Defense29.4%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6420th
  Defense2.6275th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.0%22nd
  Defense18.6%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%45th
  Defense19.1%81st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   IOWA
2. W
   GWEB
3. L
   ORE
4. W
   HAW
5. W
   TXST
6. W
   USU
7. L
   BOIS
8. W
   UNM
9. W
   CSU
10. W
    AF
11. L
    FRES
12. L
    SJSU
13. W
    CMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2017

1. Josh AllenQB274 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 63rd of 226 QBs
   1.16WAR0.73 to 1.66
2. Trey WoodsRB121 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 138th of 352 RBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.32
3. Kellen OverstreetRB71 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 172nd of 352 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.24
4. Nick SmithQB84 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 181st of 226 QBs
   0.17WAR0.05 to 0.30
5. Tim ZaleskiP67 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 14th of 95 punters
   0.11WAR−0.02 to 0.27
6. C.J. JohnsonWR42 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 194th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
7. Cooper RothePK13 plays · +0.396 pts/play · 65th of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
8. Austin ConwayWR73 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 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

What it had and what it did, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  277277122nd of 130Roster talent: 277, 122nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  107107116th of 130Recruiting: 107, 116th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%79th of 128Returning production: 56%, 79th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.5−2.579th of 128SP+ rating: −2.5, 79th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.20 of the 0.29 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 USUQ4 2:27 4th & 1 at USU 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−10.3 pts
2. vs HAWQ4 3:46 4th & 3 at HAW 30, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
3. vs UNMQ2 9:47 4th & 1 at WYO 29, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs CMUQ2 0:39 4th & 15 at CMU 34, up 20Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
5. at IOWAQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at IOWA 38, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs CMUQ2 13:48 4th & 2 at CMU 10, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs FRESQ4 12:48 4th & 3 at WYO 39, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs FRESQ3 3:46 4th & 2 at WYO 47, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

20th of 130 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. L

   IOWA
2. W

   GWEB
3. L

   ORE
4. W

   HAW
5. W

   TXST
6. W

   USU
7. L

   BOIS
8. W

   UNM
9. W

   CSU
10. W

    AF
11. L

    FRES
12. L

    SJSU
13. W

    CMU

What moved it, 2017

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+1.29
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• IOWAL 3-24 at IOWA21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• GWEBW 27-0 vs GWEB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• OREL 13-49 vs ORE16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21
• HAWW 28-21 vs HAW64% → 80%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −20
• TXSTW 45-10 vs TXST86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• USUW 28-23 at USU44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• BOISL 14-24 at BOIS15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• UNMW 42-3 vs UNM57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +41
• CSUW 16-13 vs CSU34% → 88%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +3
• AFW 28-14 at AF42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• FRESL 7-13 vs FRES40% → 13%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• SJSUL 17-20 at SJSU89% → 7%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• CMUW 37-14 vs CMU52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +1

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.