Wyoming

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.018th
  Defense+0.0373rd
• 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.
  Offense38.1%15th
  Defense38.0%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1719th
  Defense+1.2163rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0123rd
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.049th
  Defense+0.0974th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%23rd
  Defense43.9%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.5%13th
  Defense26.7%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7421st
  Defense3.0031st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%15th
  Defense16.7%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.7%9th
  Defense13.0%13th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   AKR
2. W
   UNI
3. L
   UTAH
4. L
   COLO
5. L
   UNLV
6. W
   SJSU
7. L
   AF
8. W
   CSU
9. L
   SDSU
10. L
    FRES
11. L
    NEV
12. L
    HAW

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wyoming.

Players, 2025

1. Kaden AndersonQB311 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 97th of 231 QBs
   0.82WAR0.28 to 1.31
2. Samuel HarrisRB99 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 122nd of 365 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
3. Sam ScottRB92 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 156th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
4. Chris Durr Jr.WR54 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 144th of 451 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.21
5. Terron KellmanRB49 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 236th of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. Jaylen SargentWR36 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 274th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.14
7. John Michael GyllenborgTE22 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 76th of 213 TEs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.10
8. Evan SvobodaTE19 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 128th of 213 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  489489117th of 134Roster talent: 489, 117th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014095th of 134Recruiting: 140, 95th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%5th of 132Returning production: 75%, 5th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.3−11.3108th of 134SP+ rating: −11.3, 108th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.05 of the 0.09 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 AFQ3 3:06 4th & 3 at AF 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
2. at AKRQ4 1:57 4th & 1 at AKR 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
3. vs NEVQ2 0:03 4th & 6 at NEV 36, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
4. at SDSUQ3 3:11 4th & 2 at WYO 28, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
5. at AKRQ1 3:48 4th & 2 at AKR 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs UTAHQ2 6:44 4th & 2 at WYO 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
7. vs UTAHQ2 1:28 4th & 1 at WYO 12, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
8. vs UTAHQ2 1:28 4th & 1 at WYO 12, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

116th of 136 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

   AKR
2. W

   UNI
3. L

   UTAH
4. L

   COLO
5. L

   UNLV
6. W

   SJSU
7. L

   AF
8. W

   CSU
9. L

   SDSU
10. L

    FRES
11. L

    NEV
12. L

    HAW

What moved it, 2025

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−2.10
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Timeouts+0.33
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.06

Game by game

• AKRW 10-0 at AKR72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +12
• UNIW 31-7 vs UNI87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• UTAHL 6-31 vs UTAH8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14
• COLOL 20-37 at COLO25% → 2%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27
• UNLVL 17-31 vs UNLV45% → 1%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• SJSUW 35-28 vs SJSU52% → 84%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position −1
• AFL 21-24 at AF47% → 2%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −60, Timeouts +20
• CSUW 28-0 vs CSU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• SDSUL 7-24 at SDSU30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −33, Clock +1
• FRESL 3-24 at FRES49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −47, Clock +2
• NEVL 7-13 vs NEV73% → 21%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• HAWL 7-27 at HAW33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1

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.