Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.082nd
  Defense+0.1240th
• 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.
  Offense37.6%6th
  Defense46.3%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1016th
  Defense+1.0495th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0026th
  Defense+0.1033rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.154th
  Defense+0.1742nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.0%6th
  Defense50.6%19th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.7%20th
  Defense35.3%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5712th
  Defense3.2112th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.2%9th
  Defense17.1%27th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense24.2%1st
  Defense13.6%13th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   BALL
2. W
   WKU
3. L
   USF
4. L
   NEB
5. L
   IOWA
6. L
   RUTG
7. L
   MINN
8. L
   WIS
9. L
   PUR
10. L
    IU
11. L
    OSU
12. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2017

1. Cam ThomasQB100 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 144th of 226 QBs
   0.34WAR0.07 to 0.59
2. Chayce CrouchQB111 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 145th of 226 QBs
   0.34WAR0.11 to 0.54
3. Mike EpsteinRB59 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 172nd of 352 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.23
4. Blake HayesP60 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 9th of 95 punters
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.27
5. Jeff George Jr.QB168 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 186th of 226 QBs
   0.15WAR−0.16 to 0.45
6. Ra'Von BonnerRB58 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 213th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
7. Kendrick FosterRB65 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 215th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.20
8. Chase McLaughlinPK17 plays · +0.349 pts/play · 51st of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53953964th of 130Roster talent: 539, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16816861st of 130Recruiting: 168, 61st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%87th of 128Returning production: 51%, 87th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.4−7.496th of 128SP+ rating: −7.4, 96th of 128 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.15 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 USFQ3 7:57 4th & 1 at ILL 36, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs WKUQ2 1:41 4th & 4 at WKU 36, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs WKUQ4 8:49 4th & 3 at WKU 34, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs BALLQ4 8:59 4th & 3 at BALL 26, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs WKUQ2 9:58 4th & 2 at WKU 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs NUQ2 2:06 4th & 2 at ILL 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at IOWAQ2 2:49 4th & 3 at IOWA 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs BALLQ3 2:07 4th & 14 at BALL 37, down 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

95th of 130 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

   BALL
2. W

   WKU
3. L

   USF
4. L

   NEB
5. L

   IOWA
6. L

   RUTG
7. L

   MINN
8. L

   WIS
9. L

   PUR
10. L

    IU
11. L

    OSU
12. L

    NU

What moved it, 2017

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−1.64
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.86

Game by game

• BALLW 24-21 vs BALL65% → 88%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +2
• WKUW 20-7 vs WKU36% → 99%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +2
• USFL 23-47 at USF13% → 9%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position −1
• NEBL 6-28 vs NEB35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• IOWAL 16-45 at IOWA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −18
• RUTGL 24-35 vs RUTG53% → 3%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• MINNL 17-24 at MINN18% → 7%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position −1
• WISL 10-24 vs WIS4% → 1%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• PURL 10-29 at PUR18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• IUL 14-24 vs IU26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• OSUL 14-52 at OSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• NUL 7-42 vs NU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1

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.