Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0318th
  Defense+0.1050th
• 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%37th
  Defense41.3%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1312th
  Defense+1.1970th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1673rd
  Defense+0.1225th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.038th
  Defense+0.1472nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%44th
  Defense47.2%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.8%9th
  Defense30.1%56th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2575th
  Defense3.428th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.8%65th
  Defense12.3%8th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%59th
  Defense14.1%20th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   ILL
2. W
   TLSA
3. W
   UNCO
4. W
   AF
5. L
   BYU
6. L
   SJSU
7. W
   UNM
8. W
   USU
9. W
   HAW
10. W
    CSU
11. L
    BOIS
12. L
    FRES
13. L
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2022

1. Andrew PeasleyQB258 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 101st of 234 QBs
   0.73WAR0.17 to 1.23
2. Titus SwenRB175 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 50th of 384 RBs
   0.42WAR0.26 to 0.61
3. Dawaiian McNeelyRB46 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 196th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
4. Treyton WelchTE21 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 51st of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
5. Jayden ClemonsQB42 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 207th of 234 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16
6. John HoylandPK18 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 45th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Joshua HardemanWR30 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 297th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Clayton StewartP71 plays · +0.039 pts/play · 66th of 102 punters
   0.05WAR−0.07 to 0.19

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  292292123rd of 129Roster talent: 292, 123rd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13613697th of 129Recruiting: 136, 97th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  23%23%117th of 128Returning production: 23%, 117th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.8−10.898th of 129SP+ rating: −10.8, 98th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.28 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 8:42 4th & 2 at UNM 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it4.6 pts
2. at UNMQ4 2:57 4th & 2 at UNM 37, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.5 pts
3. vs TLSAQ3 13:12 4th & 1 at WYO 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.4 pts
4. vs USUQ3 10:15 4th & 3 at USU 38, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.9 pts
5. at CSUQ3 4:18 4th & 2 at CSU 20, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
6. vs UNCOQ3 1:48 4th & 9 at WYO 21, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.4 pts
7. vs UNCOQ3 1:48 4th & 9 at WYO 21, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.4 pts
8. vs TLSAQ4 10:53 4th & 5 at TLSA 38, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

16th of 131 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

   ILL
2. W

   TLSA
3. W

   UNCO
4. W

   AF
5. L

   BYU
6. L

   SJSU
7. W

   UNM
8. W

   USU
9. W

   HAW
10. W

    CSU
11. L

    BOIS
12. L

    FRES
13. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2022

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+0.61
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.37
• Timeouts−0.38
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.72

Game by game

• ILLL 6-38 at ILL14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• TLSAW 40-37 vs TLSA31% → 85%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts −21
• UNCOW 33-10 vs UNCO93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• AFW 17-14 vs AF11% → 92%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• BYUL 24-38 at BYU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• SJSUL 16-33 vs SJSU38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• UNMW 27-14 at UNM57% → 98%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• USUW 28-14 vs USU59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position +1
• HAWW 27-20 at HAW79% → 96%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• CSUW 14-13 at CSU69% → 74%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +29, Clock +4
• BOISL 17-20 vs BOIS13% → 7%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −26, Clock −2
• FRESL 0-30 at FRES13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• OHIOL 27-30 vs OHIO44% → 13%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −18

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.