Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0319th
  Defense+0.0474th
• 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.
  Offense38.0%10th
  Defense42.6%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2569th
  Defense+1.1474th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0024th
  Defense−0.0481st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0721st
  Defense+0.1850th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%12th
  Defense47.5%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.1%9th
  Defense32.1%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6820th
  Defense2.6279th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%42nd
  Defense23.0%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense24.7%9th
  Defense20.2%52nd

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, 2019

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
   AKR
2. W
   CONN
3. L
   EMU
4. L
   NEB
5. L
   MINN
6. L
   MICH
7. W
   WIS
8. W
   PUR
9. W
   RUTG
10. W
    MSU
11. L
    IOWA
12. L
    NU
13. L
    CAL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2019

1. Brandon PetersQB301 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 92nd of 228 QBs
   0.86WAR0.29 to 1.41
2. Reggie CorbinRB140 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 55th of 349 RBs
   0.52WAR0.39 to 0.66
3. Dre BrownRB110 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 66th of 349 RBs
   0.48WAR0.39 to 0.59
4. Ra'Von BonnerRB51 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 231st of 349 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Josh ImatorbhebheWR46 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 121st of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
6. James McCourtPK19 plays · +0.417 pts/play · 32nd of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. Matt RobinsonQB70 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 197th of 228 QBs
   0.14WAR0.02 to 0.27
8. Blake HayesP62 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 7th of 100 punters
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66266237th of 130Roster talent: 662, 37th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717760th of 130Recruiting: 177, 60th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%61st of 130Returning production: 63%, 61st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.6+0.660th of 130SP+ rating: +0.6, 60th 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, 2019

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 every call that differed was a close one. 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 MINNQ3 12:53 4th & 1 at ILL 19, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
2. at CONNQ4 4:28 4th & 4 at CONN 47, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
3. vs NEBQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at ILL 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
4. at IOWAQ2 0:16 4th & 6 at IOWA 37, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
5. vs CALQ2 5:20 4th & 8 at CAL 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
6. at IOWAQ4 10:52 4th & 4 at IOWA 10, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
7. at MINNQ2 4:40 4th & 3 at MINN 25, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
8. at IOWAQ4 2:44 4th & 9 at ILL 26, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

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

   AKR
2. W

   CONN
3. L

   EMU
4. L

   NEB
5. L

   MINN
6. L

   MICH
7. W

   WIS
8. W

   PUR
9. W

   RUTG
10. W

    MSU
11. L

    IOWA
12. L

    NU
13. L

    CAL

What moved it, 2019

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−0.38
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.13

Game by game

• AKRW 42-3 vs AKR87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +15
• CONNW 31-23 at CONN93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• EMUL 31-34 vs EMU72% → 5%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• NEBL 38-42 vs NEB17% → 8%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• MINNL 17-40 at MINN14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18
• MICHL 25-42 vs MICH5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• WISW 24-23 vs WIS3% → 94%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +91: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +3
• PURW 24-6 at PUR25% → 98%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• RUTGW 38-10 vs RUTG90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• MSUW 37-34 at MSU12% → 94%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +54, Clock +2
• IOWAL 10-19 at IOWA14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• NUL 10-29 vs NU68% → 1%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −62, Clock −2
• CALL 20-35 vs CAL35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2

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.