Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1443rd
  Defense+0.1263rd
• 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.
  Offense44.3%58th
  Defense41.2%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2335th
  Defense+1.2369th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1971st
  Defense+0.1241st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0612th
  Defense+0.1671st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.3%76th
  Defense46.3%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%21st
  Defense31.0%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2574th
  Defense3.2232nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.2%67th
  Defense13.1%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%74th
  Defense13.0%8th

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, 2021

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
   MTST
2. W
   NIU
3. W
   BALL
4. W
   CONN
5. L
   AF
6. L
   FRES
7. L
   UNM
8. L
   SJSU
9. W
   CSU
10. L
    BOIS
11. W
    USU
12. L
    HAW
13. W
    KENT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2021

1. Xazavian ValladayRB181 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 36th of 387 RBs
   0.67WAR0.50 to 0.85
2. Levi WilliamsQB176 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 117th of 219 QBs
   0.59WAR0.24 to 0.92
3. Sean ChambersQB170 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 135th of 219 QBs
   0.46WAR0.17 to 0.77
4. Titus SwenRB111 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 97th of 387 RBs
   0.41WAR0.30 to 0.52
5. Isaiah NeyorWR51 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 79th of 474 WRs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.23
6. Ayden EberhardtWR17 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 335th of 474 WRs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.08
7. Ralph FawazP48 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 79th of 101 punters
   0.05WAR−0.03 to 0.14
8. John HoylandPK10 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 99th of 128 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  327327120th of 130Roster talent: 327, 120th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130112th of 130Recruiting: 130, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%41st of 128Returning production: 85%, 41st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.6+0.676th of 130SP+ rating: +0.6, 76th 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, 2021

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 0.16 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 KENTQ2 0:00 4th & 22 at WYO 26, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.2 pts
2. vs MTSTQ3 0:00 4th & 1 at WYO 35, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs MTSTQ4 0:00 4th & 1 at WYO 35, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
4. at BOISQ4 13:04 4th & 3 at WYO 49, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at USUQ3 5:14 4th & 2 at USU 7, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. vs KENTQ4 7:29 4th & 1 at KENT 27, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at USUQ2 1:48 4th & 2 at USU 11, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at BOISQ2 14:49 4th & 1 at WYO 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

84th 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

   MTST
2. W

   NIU
3. W

   BALL
4. W

   CONN
5. L

   AF
6. L

   FRES
7. L

   UNM
8. L

   SJSU
9. W

   CSU
10. L

    BOIS
11. W

    USU
12. L

    HAW
13. W

    KENT

What moved it, 2021

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−0.19
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.11

Game by game

• MTSTW 19-16 vs MTST91% → 72%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −19: Scoreboard +6, Possession & field position −1
• NIUW 50-43 at NIU71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• BALLW 45-12 vs BALL68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33
• CONNW 24-22 at CONN97% → 58%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −39: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position −3
• AFL 14-24 at AF36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• FRESL 0-17 vs FRES38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −42, Clock −5
• UNML 3-14 vs UNM90% → 3%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −86: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• SJSUL 21-27 at SJSU44% → 7%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −3
• CSUW 31-17 vs CSU45% → 99%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• BOISL 13-23 at BOIS18% → 2%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −23
• USUW 44-17 at USU40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +59, Clock +1
• HAWL 14-38 vs HAW84% → 1%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −66, Clock −2
• KENTW 52-38 vs KENT59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +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.