Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1143rd
  Defense−0.0291st
• 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.
  Offense40.6%26th
  Defense38.6%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2363rd
  Defense+1.1764th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1782nd
  Defense−0.1398th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0116th
  Defense+0.1068th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.2%22nd
  Defense40.5%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.5%22nd
  Defense35.0%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9453rd
  Defense2.4591st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%79th
  Defense22.4%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.6%87th
  Defense21.4%67th

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, 2019

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
   MIZ
2. W
   TXST
3. W
   IDHO
4. L
   TLSA
5. W
   UNLV
6. L
   SDSU
7. W
   UNM
8. W
   NEV
9. L
   BOIS
10. L
    USU
11. W
    CSU
12. L
    AF
13. W
    GAST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2019

1. Sean ChambersQB180 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 54th of 228 QBs
   1.28WAR0.89 to 1.67
2. Xazavian ValladayRB235 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 23rd of 349 RBs
   0.72WAR0.52 to 0.89
3. Levi WilliamsQB70 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 154th of 228 QBs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.47
4. Titus SwenRB50 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 215th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.21
5. Cooper RothePK17 plays · +0.491 pts/play · 29th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
6. Trey SmithRB27 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 260th of 349 RBs
   0.11WAR0.09 to 0.13
7. Raghib Ismail Jr.WR43 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 231st of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Austin ConwayWR42 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 280th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  398398106th of 130Roster talent: 398, 106th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  120120112th of 130Recruiting: 120, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%88th of 130Returning production: 52%, 88th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.1−1.166th of 130SP+ rating: −1.1, 66th 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, 2019

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.26 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 TXSTQ4 10:19 4th & 2 at TXST 2, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs CSUQ3 2:21 4th & 1 at WYO 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at SDSUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at WYO 34, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. at USUQ3 4:44 4th & 2 at WYO 48, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at BOISQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. vs MIZQ4 13:29 4th & 1 at WYO 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at USUQ4 3:47 4th & 7 at WYO 23, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. vs MIZQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at WYO 35, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

27th 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

   MIZ
2. W

   TXST
3. W

   IDHO
4. L

   TLSA
5. W

   UNLV
6. L

   SDSU
7. W

   UNM
8. W

   NEV
9. L

   BOIS
10. L

    USU
11. W

    CSU
12. L

    AF
13. W

    GAST

What moved it, 2019

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+1.26
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.19

Game by game

• MIZW 37-31 vs MIZ14% → 96%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +3
• TXSTW 23-14 at TXST71% → 91%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +40, Possession & field position −2
• IDHOW 21-16 vs IDHO71% → 90%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• TLSAL 21-24 at TLSA33% → 8%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• UNLVW 53-17 vs UNLV68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33
• SDSUL 22-26 at SDSU38% → 7%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position +1
• UNMW 23-10 vs UNM86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +20, Possession & field position −1
• NEVW 31-3 vs NEV81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• BOISL 17-20 at BOIS14% → 17%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts +13
• USUL 21-26 at USU36% → 7%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• CSUW 17-7 vs CSU63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• AFL 6-20 at AF19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• GASTW 38-17 at GAST66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +38, 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.