Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1045th
  Defense−0.1398th
• 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.
  Offense44.0%58th
  Defense33.0%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.032nd
  Defense+1.2455th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0222nd
  Defense−0.0996th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2352nd
  Defense+0.0195th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%60th
  Defense38.6%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%61st
  Defense22.9%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1052nd
  Defense2.6689th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%69th
  Defense20.5%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.6%80th
  Defense22.0%97th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   WYO
2. L
   IU
3. W
   UVA
4. W
   UTC
5. W
   WIS
6. W
   IOWA
7. W
   MINN
8. W
   NEB
9. L
   MSU
10. L
    PUR
11. L
    MICH
12. W
    NU
13. L
    MSST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2022

1. Tommy DeVitoQB345 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 48th of 234 QBs
   1.44WAR0.60 to 2.26
2. Chase BrownRB288 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 2nd of 384 RBs
   0.81WAR0.53 to 1.06
3. Brian HightowerWR38 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 143rd of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.19
4. Reggie Love IIIRB61 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 233rd of 384 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Tip ReimanTE27 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 52nd of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
6. Isaiah WilliamsWR81 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 285th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.06 to 0.20
7. Casey WashingtonWR34 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 294th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
8. Pat BryantWR38 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 297th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63163156th of 129Roster talent: 631, 56th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17217266th of 129Recruiting: 172, 66th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%73rd of 128Returning production: 55%, 73rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.9+15.917th of 129SP+ rating: +15.9, 17th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.24 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 UVAQ4 2:40 4th & 3 at ILL 9, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.0 pts
2. vs MSUQ2 0:33 4th & 19 at MSU 29, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
3. vs UVAQ4 12:23 4th & 2 at UVA 27, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. at NEBQ3 3:29 4th & 1 at NEB 18, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
5. vs PURQ4 11:09 4th & 4 at ILL 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. at IUQ2 7:01 4th & 2 at IU 11, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at WISQ2 2:31 4th & 3 at ILL 37, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs WYOQ3 10:10 4th & 1 at ILL 31, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

51st of 131 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

   WYO
2. L

   IU
3. W

   UVA
4. W

   UTC
5. W

   WIS
6. W

   IOWA
7. W

   MINN
8. W

   NEB
9. L

   MSU
10. L

    PUR
11. L

    MICH
12. W

    NU
13. L

    MSST

What moved it, 2022

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−0.12
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.01

Game by game

• WYOW 38-6 vs WYO86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• IUL 20-23 at IU48% → 10%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position −3
• UVAW 24-3 vs UVA59% → 13%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• UTCW 31-0 vs UTC92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• WISW 34-10 at WIS32% → 99%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +63, Clock +2
• IOWAW 9-6 vs IOWA57% → 90%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +3
• MINNW 26-14 vs MINN35% → 98%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +2
• NEBW 26-9 at NEB70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• MSUL 15-23 vs MSU85% → 6%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• PURL 24-31 vs PUR66% → 4%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• MICHL 17-19 at MICH11% → 16%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +5: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• NUW 41-3 at NU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• MSSTL 10-19 vs MSST41% → 7%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −46, 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.