Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.0567th
• 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.
  Offense38.6%12th
  Defense42.2%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2045th
  Defense+1.0496th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0847th
  Defense+0.0271st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0317th
  Defense+0.1062nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.2%18th
  Defense48.3%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.8%12th
  Defense29.8%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9960th
  Defense2.7866th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%59th
  Defense20.2%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%63rd
  Defense18.1%75th

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, 2018

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
   NMSU
2. L
   WSU
3. L
   MIZ
4. W
   WOF
5. L
   BOIS
6. L
   HAW
7. L
   FRES
8. L
   USU
9. W
   CSU
10. W
    SJSU
11. W
    AF
12. W
    UNM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2018

1. Nico EvansRB192 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 14th of 351 RBs
   0.76WAR0.61 to 0.93
2. Sean ChambersQB79 plays · +0.293 pts/play · 147th of 225 QBs
   0.43WAR0.14 to 0.67
3. Tyler Vander WaalQB216 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 157th of 225 QBs
   0.36WAR0.05 to 0.68
4. Cooper RothePK13 plays · +0.424 pts/play · 53rd of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
5. James PriceWR38 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 285th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.10
6. Tim ZaleskiP24 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 64th of 91 punters
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
7. Tyree MayfieldTE21 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 45th of 204 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07
8. Austin ConwayWR40 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 384th of 434 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  348348116th of 130Roster talent: 348, 116th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  114114114th of 130Recruiting: 114, 114th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%83rd of 129Returning production: 56%, 83rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.9+1.968th of 130SP+ rating: +1.9, 68th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.15 of the 0.20 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 USUQ4 5:32 4th & 4 at USU 4, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. at NMSUQ3 8:15 4th & 1 at NMSU 38, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. vs WOFQ3 6:11 4th & 1 at WYO 15, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at UNMQ2 6:02 4th & 11 at WYO 26, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
5. vs USUQ2 7:47 4th & 1 at WYO 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs USUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at WYO 36, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs USUQ3 14:10 4th & 2 at USU 41, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at NMSUQ2 1:07 4th & 4 at NMSU 44, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

48th 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. W

   NMSU
2. L

   WSU
3. L

   MIZ
4. W

   WOF
5. L

   BOIS
6. L

   HAW
7. L

   FRES
8. L

   USU
9. W

   CSU
10. W

    SJSU
11. W

    AF
12. W

    UNM

What moved it, 2018

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+0.54
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.15

Game by game

• NMSUW 29-7 at NMSU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• WSUL 19-41 vs WSU40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, Clock −1
• MIZL 13-40 at MIZ8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• WOFW 17-14 vs WOF85% → 95%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20
• BOISL 14-34 vs BOIS13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20
• HAWL 13-17 at HAW60% → 10%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −2
• FRESL 3-27 at FRES10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts +1
• USUL 16-24 vs USU18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• CSUW 34-21 at CSU59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• SJSUW 24-9 vs SJSU84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• AFW 35-27 vs AF57% → 97%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• UNMW 31-3 at UNM66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +38, Clock +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.