Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1353rd
  Defense+0.276th
• 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.
  Offense45.0%67th
  Defense50.3%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1940th
  Defense+1.2532nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2696th
  Defense+0.282nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0112th
  Defense+0.2719th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%80th
  Defense56.4%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.9%29th
  Defense36.8%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2187th
  Defense3.602nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%51st
  Defense14.4%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.1%11th
  Defense15.9%44th

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, 2018

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
   USF
4. L
   PSU
5. W
   RUTG
6. L
   PUR
7. L
   WIS
8. L
   MD
9. W
   MINN
10. L
    NEB
11. L
    IOWA
12. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2018

1. AJ BushQB262 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 62nd of 225 QBs
   1.34WAR0.90 to 1.81
2. Reggie CorbinRB122 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 83rd of 351 RBs
   0.41WAR0.31 to 0.52
3. M.J. Rivers IIQB93 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 173rd of 225 QBs
   0.25WAR0.11 to 0.40
4. Mike EpsteinRB57 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 203rd of 351 RBs
   0.21WAR0.17 to 0.25
5. Chase McLaughlinPK20 plays · +0.408 pts/play · 16th of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
6. Ra'Von BonnerRB35 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 265th of 351 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. Blake HayesP38 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 31st of 91 punters
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Trenard DavisWR32 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 271st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56356358th of 130Roster talent: 563, 58th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717755th of 130Recruiting: 177, 55th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%37th of 129Returning production: 76%, 37th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.9−7.997th of 130SP+ rating: −7.9, 97th of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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 USFQ4 11:51 4th & 1 at ILL 38, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. vs USFQ3 2:56 4th & 3 at USF 24, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs MINNQ2 5:31 4th & 3 at ILL 27, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs WIUQ4 12:20 4th & 4 at WIU 28, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs WIUQ2 15:00 4th & 16 at WIU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at NUQ1 0:32 4th & 3 at NU 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at NEBQ3 4:07 4th & 1 at ILL 34, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs IOWAQ2 13:42 4th & 1 at ILL 34, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

47th 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

   KENT
2. W

   WIU
3. L

   USF
4. L

   PSU
5. W

   RUTG
6. L

   PUR
7. L

   WIS
8. L

   MD
9. W

   MINN
10. L

    NEB
11. L

    IOWA
12. L

    NU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.05
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.55

Game by game

• KENTW 31-24 vs KENT88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• WIUW 34-14 vs WIU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• USFL 19-25 vs USF21% → 12%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• PSUL 24-63 vs PSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• RUTGW 38-17 at RUTG64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +42, Clock +1
• PURL 7-46 vs PUR22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• WISL 20-49 at WIS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• MDL 33-63 at MD13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• MINNW 55-31 vs MINN29% → 100%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +57, Timeouts +1
• NEBL 35-54 at NEB13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• IOWAL 0-63 vs IOWA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• NUL 16-24 at NU15% → 4%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −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.