Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1146th
  Defense+0.1531st
• 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.
  Offense45.7%80th
  Defense44.5%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1511th
  Defense+1.1293rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0015th
  Defense+0.0946th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3277th
  Defense+0.2633rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%77th
  Defense49.2%27th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%67th
  Defense34.0%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3380th
  Defense3.2720th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.5%86th
  Defense15.6%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.1%8th
  Defense15.2%27th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TOL
2. L
   KU
3. L
   PSU
4. W
   FAU
5. L
   PUR
6. L
   NEB
7. W
   MD
8. L
   WIS
9. W
   MINN
10. W
    IU
11. L
    IOWA
12. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2023

1. Luke AltmyerQB322 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 91st of 250 QBs
   0.98WAR0.28 to 1.79
2. John PaddockQB123 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 147th of 250 QBs
   0.36WAR0.08 to 0.61
3. Casey WashingtonWR59 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 59th of 457 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.34
4. Reggie Love IIIRB119 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 124th of 383 RBs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.30
5. Isaiah WilliamsWR110 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 157th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR−0.15 to 0.37
6. Tip ReimanTE19 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 49th of 212 TEs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Pat BryantWR51 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 192nd of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.20
8. Caleb GriffinPK17 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 78th of 113 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63163163rd of 130Roster talent: 631, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17817864th of 130Recruiting: 178, 64th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%103rd of 128Returning production: 32%, 103rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.5−2.574th of 130SP+ rating: −2.5, 74th 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, 2023

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.19 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 IOWAQ4 14:56 4th & 1 at IOWA 11, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
2. at MDQ4 9:33 4th & 2 at MD 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
3. vs IUQ4 5:04 4th & 3 at IU 3, down 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at PURQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at PUR 35, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at IOWAQ4 11:07 4th & 5 at IOWA 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs WISQ3 12:11 4th & 3 at ILL 47, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs NUQ3 5:57 4th & 3 at NU 22, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at KUQ2 12:43 4th & 2 at ILL 45, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

92nd of 133 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

   TOL
2. L

   KU
3. L

   PSU
4. W

   FAU
5. L

   PUR
6. L

   NEB
7. W

   MD
8. L

   WIS
9. W

   MINN
10. W

    IU
11. L

    IOWA
12. L

    NU

What moved it, 2023

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−2.01
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.32

Game by game

• TOLW 30-28 vs TOL72% → 87%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +2
• KUL 23-34 at KU31% → 2%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• PSUL 13-30 vs PSU14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• FAUW 23-17 vs FAU85% → 97%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• PURL 19-44 at PUR48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts +2
• NEBL 7-20 vs NEB58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• MDW 27-24 at MD15% → 93%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +53, Clock +4
• WISL 21-25 vs WIS39% → 16%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• MINNW 27-26 at MINN43% → 87%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42, Clock +4
• IUW 48-45 vs IU64% → 1%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• IOWAL 13-15 at IOWA40% → 7%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• NUL 43-45 vs NU60% → 6%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3

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.