Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0120th
  Defense+0.0470th
• 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.
  Offense38.7%16th
  Defense40.5%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1633rd
  Defense+1.1857th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0413th
  Defense+0.0361st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0625th
  Defense+0.0672nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%28th
  Defense44.3%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.7%6th
  Defense32.2%58th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6320th
  Defense2.6670th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%52nd
  Defense23.8%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense2.5%79th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Illinois 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
   KENT
2. W
   WIU
3. L
   UNC
4. W
   MTSU
5. W
   NEB
6. L
   IOWA
7. L
   WIS
8. L
   PSU
9. W
   PUR
10. L
    OSU
11. L
    MINN
12. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2015

1. Wes LuntQB415 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 48th of 205 QBs
   1.70WAR0.99 to 2.50
2. Josh FergusonRB145 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 69th of 333 RBs
   0.30WAR0.17 to 0.42
3. Geronimo AllisonWR109 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 51st of 411 WRs
   0.24WAR0.06 to 0.40
4. Ke'Shawn VaughnRB139 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 104th of 333 RBs
   0.24WAR0.14 to 0.33
5. Malik TurnerWR61 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 115th of 411 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
6. Desmond CainWR61 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 153rd of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.20
7. Taylor ZalewskiPK21 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 64th of 115 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
8. Ryan FrainP54 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 40th of 92 punters
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.22

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 Illinois'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53153160th of 128Roster talent: 531, 60th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16816862nd of 128Recruiting: 168, 62nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%46th of 127Returning production: 73%, 46th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.7+2.768th of 128SP+ rating: +2.7, 68th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Illinois's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 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 NEBQ4 9:17 4th & 1 at ILL 39, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
2. vs WISQ3 11:10 4th & 1 at ILL 19, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs WISQ3 2:21 4th & 1 at ILL 31, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at IOWAQ2 2:45 4th & 1 at ILL 38, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at MINNQ3 6:14 4th & 3 at MINN 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs OSUQ3 10:55 4th & 10 at OSU 18, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs NUQ3 2:10 4th & 11 at NU 32, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs WISQ2 4:23 4th & 4 at WIS 7, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

81st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Illinois's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   KENT
2. W

   WIU
3. L

   UNC
4. W

   MTSU
5. W

   NEB
6. L

   IOWA
7. L

   WIS
8. L

   PSU
9. W

   PUR
10. L

    OSU
11. L

    MINN
12. L

    NU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Illinois'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−1.21
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.49

Game by game

• KENTW 52-3 vs KENT83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21
• WIUW 44-0 vs WIU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• UNCL 14-48 at UNC29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31
• MTSUW 27-25 vs MTSU69% → 95%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• NEBW 14-13 vs NEB31% → 73%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +9, Possession & field position +2
• IOWAL 20-29 at IOWA29% → 4%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• WISL 13-24 vs WIS33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• PSUL 0-39 at PSU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• PURW 48-14 at PUR58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• OSUL 3-28 vs OSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18
• MINNL 23-32 at MINN40% → 4%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• NUL 14-24 vs NU45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Illinois's side.

Closest call

IU 45-48 ILL (2023) - Illinois dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.