Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0627th
  Defense−0.0697th
• 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.
  Offense38.0%13th
  Defense38.4%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2026th
  Defense+1.1489th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1471st
  Defense−0.1395th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.069th
  Defense+0.0190th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%25th
  Defense42.5%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.0%12th
  Defense30.1%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1173rd
  Defense2.5584th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%70th
  Defense20.8%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%73rd
  Defense18.0%68th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   NEV
2. W
   HAW
3. L
   CSU
4. W
   UNLV
5. L
   UNM
6. L
   BOIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2020

1. Levi WilliamsQB164 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 71st of 212 QBs
   0.49WAR0.21 to 0.80
2. Xazavian ValladayRB114 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 67th of 338 RBs
   0.38WAR0.28 to 0.47
3. Trey SmithRB78 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 124th of 338 RBs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.32
4. Ayden EberhardtWR21 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 227th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
5. John HoylandPK13 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 26th of 97 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Sean ChambersQB2 plays · +0.359 pts/play · 203rd of 212 QBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
7. Treyton WelchTE12 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 108th of 191 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03
8. Jackson MarcotteTE2 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 137th of 191 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  353353104th of 127Roster talent: 353, 104th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  128128108th of 127Recruiting: 128, 108th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%40th of 127Returning production: 75%, 40th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.5−2.582nd of 127SP+ rating: −2.5, 82nd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.15 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. at UNMQ4 9:09 4th & 1 at WYO 19, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. at NEVQ4 3:26 4th & 4 at WYO 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
3. at UNMQ4 1:38 4th & 10 at UNM 44, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.8 pts
4. at CSUQ3 14:54 4th & 26 at CSU 38, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
5. at CSUQ1 2:07 4th & 1 at WYO 36, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at UNMQ3 11:54 4th & 2 at WYO 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs HAWQ1 5:39 4th & 3 at HAW 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at NEVQ3 10:25 4th & 2 at WYO 27, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

117th of 127 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

   NEV
2. W

   HAW
3. L

   CSU
4. W

   UNLV
5. L

   UNM
6. L

   BOIS

What moved it, 2020

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+0.07
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock−0.20
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.61

Game by game

• NEVL 34-37 at NEV59% → 72%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +21
• HAWW 31-7 vs HAW44% → 99%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +47, Clock +1
• CSUL 24-34 at CSU60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• UNLVW 45-14 at UNLV84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• UNML 16-17 at UNM85% → 16%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• BOISL 9-17 vs BOIS26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −34, 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.