Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1458th
  Defense+0.0858th
• 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.
  Offense43.0%58th
  Defense42.6%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2023rd
  Defense+1.1685th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1464th
  Defense−0.0183rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2042nd
  Defense+0.2633rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%55th
  Defense48.0%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%54th
  Defense30.7%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2570th
  Defense3.1245th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.1%67th
  Defense15.0%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%60th
  Defense14.6%16th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TTU
2. W
   PRST
3. L
   TEX
4. W
   APP
5. W
   UNM
6. W
   FRES
7. L
   AF
8. L
   BOIS
9. W
   CSU
10. L
    UNLV
11. W
    HAW
12. W
    NEV
13. W
    TOL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2023

1. Andrew PeasleyQB304 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 63rd of 250 QBs
   1.35WAR0.80 to 1.97
2. Harrison WayleeRB147 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 38th of 383 RBs
   0.40WAR0.25 to 0.53
3. Treyton WelchTE29 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 26th of 212 TEs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
4. Wyatt WielandWR48 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 132nd of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
5. John Michael GyllenborgTE19 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 63rd of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. John HoylandPK17 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 55th of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Clayton StewartP50 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 82nd of 103 punters
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.15
8. Evan SvobodaTE18 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 188th of 212 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  339339123rd of 130Roster talent: 339, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  131131100th of 130Recruiting: 131, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%25th of 128Returning production: 74%, 25th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.6−3.677th of 130SP+ rating: −3.6, 77th 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, 2023

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 0.16 of the 0.22 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 UNMQ3 0:36 4th & 3 at UNM 41, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.1 pts
2. vs CSUQ3 9:21 4th & 2 at CSU 35, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
3. at AFQ4 6:14 4th & 4 at AF 7, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.9 pts
4. vs TOLQ2 5:31 4th & 1 at WYO 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
5. vs CSUQ4 7:24 4th & 1 at WYO 45, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
6. vs FRESQ4 1:48 4th & 2 at FRES 30, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
7. at UNLVQ4 14:06 4th & 3 at UNLV 34, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
8. vs CSUQ2 10:25 4th & 4 at CSU 38, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

16th of 133 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

   TTU
2. W

   PRST
3. L

   TEX
4. W

   APP
5. W

   UNM
6. W

   FRES
7. L

   AF
8. L

   BOIS
9. W

   CSU
10. L

    UNLV
11. W

    HAW
12. W

    NEV
13. W

    TOL

What moved it, 2023

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−0.13
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.15
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.38

Game by game

• TTUW 35-33 vs TTU16% → 80%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −24
• PRSTW 31-17 vs PRST96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8
• TEXL 10-31 at TEX2% → 1%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −5
• APPW 22-19 vs APP58% → 11%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −45, Possession & field position −3
• UNMW 35-26 vs UNM86% → 7%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −54, Clock −2
• FRESW 24-19 vs FRES37% → 95%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +5
• AFL 27-34 at AF23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• BOISL 7-32 at BOIS32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• CSUW 24-15 vs CSU59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• UNLVL 14-34 at UNLV46% → 1%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −42
• HAWW 42-9 vs HAW82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• NEVW 42-6 at NEV80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26
• TOLW 16-15 vs TOL59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +31, 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.