Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1028th
  Defense+0.1540th
• 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.
  Offense38.5%15th
  Defense44.7%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1815th
  Defense+1.0899th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1147th
  Defense+0.1338th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1119th
  Defense+0.2438th
• 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%26th
  Defense51.9%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.1%5th
  Defense27.7%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2675th
  Defense3.2428th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.7%88th
  Defense10.0%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%54th
  Defense15.3%27th

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, 2021

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
   NEB
2. L
   UTSA
3. L
   UVA
4. L
   MD
5. L
   PUR
6. W
   CLT
7. L
   WIS
8. W
   PSU
9. L
   RUTG
10. W
    MINN
11. L
    IOWA
12. W
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2021

1. Brandon PetersQB181 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 101st of 219 QBs
   0.78WAR0.44 to 1.16
2. Chase BrownRB134 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 44th of 387 RBs
   0.59WAR0.47 to 0.72
3. Artur SitkowskiQB124 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 134th of 219 QBs
   0.46WAR0.21 to 0.71
4. Josh McCrayRB74 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 209th of 387 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.29
5. Blake HayesP56 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 18th of 101 punters
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
6. Isaiah WilliamsWR73 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 104th of 474 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.23
7. Reggie Love IIIRB36 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 289th of 387 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. James McCourtPK17 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 45th of 128 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63063051st of 130Roster talent: 630, 51st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117168th of 130Recruiting: 171, 68th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%22nd of 128Returning production: 91%, 22nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.3+4.364th of 130SP+ rating: +4.3, 64th 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, 2021

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 0.18 of the 0.26 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 PURQ4 9:26 4th & 2 at PUR 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.1 pts
2. at PURQ3 8:18 4th & 1 at PUR 17, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at PURQ4 0:40 4th & 10 at PUR 19, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
4. at IOWAQ3 2:46 4th & 4 at IOWA 35, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at MINNQ2 9:47 4th & 1 at ILL 31, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs UTSAQ4 14:15 4th & 5 at UTSA 35, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs RUTGQ2 3:59 4th & 1 at ILL 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at UVAQ2 3:58 4th & 1 at ILL 29, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

42nd 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

   NEB
2. L

   UTSA
3. L

   UVA
4. L

   MD
5. L

   PUR
6. W

   CLT
7. L

   WIS
8. W

   PSU
9. L

   RUTG
10. W

    MINN
11. L

    IOWA
12. W

    NU

What moved it, 2021

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+0.09
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.16

Game by game

• NEBW 30-22 vs NEB36% → 98%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• UTSAL 30-37 vs UTSA62% → 9%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• UVAL 14-42 at UVA20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −22
• MDL 17-20 vs MD29% → 97%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +46, Possession & field position −2
• PURL 9-13 at PUR23% → 6%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• CLTW 24-14 vs CLT77% → 97%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• WISL 0-24 vs WIS20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• PSUW 20-18 at PSU6% → 39%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +33: Timeouts −1, Clock +1
• RUTGL 14-20 vs RUTG45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• MINNW 14-6 at MINN16% → 97%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +59, Clock +4
• IOWAL 23-33 at IOWA21% → 5%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position +2
• NUW 47-14 vs NU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28

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.