Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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−0.017th
  Defense+0.1150th
• 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.
  Offense37.9%7th
  Defense46.2%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2255th
  Defense+1.0694th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0226th
  Defense+0.1038th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0111th
  Defense+0.1650th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.9%9th
  Defense50.5%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%9th
  Defense36.9%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7728th
  Defense3.0145th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.6%6th
  Defense19.4%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%16th
  Defense16.8%57th

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, 2016

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
   MUR
2. L
   UNC
3. L
   WMU
4. L
   NEB
5. L
   PUR
6. W
   RUTG
7. L
   MICH
8. L
   MINN
9. W
   MSU
10. L
    WIS
11. L
    IOWA
12. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2016

1. Wes LuntQB185 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 140th of 218 QBs
   0.38WAR0.11 to 0.66
2. Kendrick FosterRB103 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 107th of 347 RBs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.44
3. Reggie CorbinRB85 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 152nd of 347 RBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.34
4. Chayce CrouchQB54 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 165th of 218 QBs
   0.18WAR0.06 to 0.29
5. Malik TurnerWR62 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 101st of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
6. Jeff George Jr.QB68 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 180th of 218 QBs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.24
7. Ke'Shawn VaughnRB47 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 236th of 347 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
8. Ryan FrainP40 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 63rd of 82 punters
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.18

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52452464th of 128Roster talent: 524, 64th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16316367th of 128Recruiting: 163, 67th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%60th of 128Returning production: 69%, 60th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.7−6.794th of 128SP+ rating: −6.7, 94th 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, 2016

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 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 NEBQ4 2:57 4th & 1 at ILL 34, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. vs PURQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at ILL 43, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs MSUQ2 7:52 4th & 1 at ILL 19, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs WMUQ3 10:36 4th & 2 at WMU 3, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs PURQ3 9:40 4th & 3 at PUR 48, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs IOWAQ2 4:33 4th & 2 at IOWA 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs UNCQ2 9:10 4th & 1 at ILL 45, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs MINNQ2 6:15 4th & 7 at MINN 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

103rd 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

   MUR
2. L

   UNC
3. L

   WMU
4. L

   NEB
5. L

   PUR
6. W

   RUTG
7. L

   MICH
8. L

   MINN
9. W

   MSU
10. L

    WIS
11. L

    IOWA
12. L

    NU

What moved it, 2016

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−1.48
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• MURW 52-3 vs MUR97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• UNCL 23-48 vs UNC36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1
• WMUL 10-34 vs WMU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• NEBL 16-31 at NEB7% → 2%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −12
• PURL 31-34 vs PUR72% → 11%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −19
• RUTGW 24-7 at RUTG65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, Clock +1
• MICHL 8-41 at MICH4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• MINNL 17-40 vs MINN22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• MSUW 31-27 vs MSU33% → 95%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position −1
• WISL 3-48 at WIS5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• IOWAL 0-28 vs IOWA23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• NUL 21-42 at NU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19

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.