Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.0110th
  Defense+0.1724th
• 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.
  Offense36.4%5th
  Defense44.0%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2750th
  Defense+1.2749th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0215th
  Defense+0.1815th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0011th
  Defense+0.1745th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.1%7th
  Defense49.7%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.4%11th
  Defense31.6%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6410th
  Defense3.0936th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%21st
  Defense18.0%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%38th
  Defense14.5%29th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   ASU
2. L
   IDHO
3. L
   BYU
4. L
   UNT
5. W
   AF
6. L
   SDSU
7. L
   SJSU
8. L
   USU
9. W
   UNM
10. L
    CSU
11. L
    BOIS
12. W
    WSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2024

1. Kaden AndersonQB114 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 137th of 232 QBs
   0.44WAR0.26 to 0.62
2. Sam ScottRB90 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 157th of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
3. Harrison WayleeRB64 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 167th of 373 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.22
4. Jamari FerrellRB72 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 214th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
5. John Michael GyllenborgTE29 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 24th of 221 TEs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
6. John HoylandPK16 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 67th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.12
7. Evan SvobodaTE64 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 52nd of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.13
8. Jack CulbreathP55 plays · +0.030 pts/play · 71st of 106 punters
   0.03WAR−0.05 to 0.12

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  455455122nd of 131Roster talent: 455, 122nd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  133133100th of 131Recruiting: 133, 100th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%107th of 130Returning production: 26%, 107th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.6−13.6112th of 131SP+ rating: −13.6, 112th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.18 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 UNTQ4 0:56 4th & 10 at WYO 35, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.6 pts
2. vs IDHOQ4 10:07 4th & 4 at IDHO 43, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.3 pts
3. at UNMQ3 7:29 4th & 1 at UNM 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.8 pts
4. vs AFQ4 10:36 4th & 4 at AF 6, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
5. vs BYUQ2 13:35 4th & 1 at WYO 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
6. at CSUQ2 12:15 4th & 4 at CSU 32, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
7. at SJSUQ2 2:18 4th & 25 at SJSU 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
8. vs SDSUQ4 6:09 4th & 9 at midfield, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

92nd of 134 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

   ASU
2. L

   IDHO
3. L

   BYU
4. L

   UNT
5. W

   AF
6. L

   SDSU
7. L

   SJSU
8. L

   USU
9. W

   UNM
10. L

    CSU
11. L

    BOIS
12. W

    WSU

What moved it, 2024

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−1.35
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.96

Game by game

• ASUL 7-48 at ASU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29
• IDHOL 13-17 vs IDHO73% → 14%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4
• BYUL 14-34 vs BYU20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• UNTL 17-44 at UNT31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position +1
• AFW 31-19 vs AF45% → 99%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +1
• SDSUL 24-27 vs SDSU50% → 13%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3
• SJSUL 14-24 at SJSU20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24
• USUL 25-27 vs USU44% → 6%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• UNMW 49-45 at UNM35% → 95%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• CSUL 10-24 at CSU24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27
• BOISL 13-17 vs BOIS6% → 10%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• WSUW 15-14 at WSU11% → 94%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3

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.