Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2385th
  Defense+0.1241st
• 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.
  Offense44.6%67th
  Defense46.3%14th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3171st
  Defense+1.0895th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1262nd
  Defense+0.1524th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3592nd
  Defense+0.1358th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.1%81st
  Defense51.1%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.5%39th
  Defense33.9%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1465th
  Defense3.572nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.9%88th
  Defense10.6%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%26th
  Defense13.4%12th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   EIU
2. W
   KU
3. W
   CMU
4. W
   NEB
5. L
   PSU
6. W
   PUR
7. W
   MICH
8. L
   ORE
9. L
   MINN
10. W
    MSU
11. W
    RUTG
12. W
    NU
13. W
    SC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2024

1. Luke AltmyerQB344 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 74th of 232 QBs
   1.26WAR0.70 to 1.79
2. Aidan LaugheryRB79 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 141st of 373 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.26
3. Josh McCrayRB92 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 143rd of 373 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.26
4. Zakhari FranklinWR48 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 51st of 452 WRs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.30
5. Pat BryantWR43 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 60th of 452 WRs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.28
6. Hugh RobertsonP27 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 76th of 106 punters
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.06
7. Kaden FeaginTE51 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 112th of 221 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.03 to 0.08
8. Tanner ArkinTE17 plays · −0.013 pts/play · 217th of 221 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.03 to 0.02

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65465463rd of 131Roster talent: 654, 63rd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918950th of 131Recruiting: 189, 50th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%68th of 130Returning production: 45%, 68th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.6+9.631st of 131SP+ rating: +9.6, 31st of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.21 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 RUTGQ4 0:04 4th & 13 at RUTG 40, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−17.1 pts
2. vs SCQ4 0:00 4th & 5 at SC 20, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs KUQ2 6:37 4th & 3 at ILL 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs MSUQ4 14:53 4th & 5 at midfield, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs MICHQ3 11:59 4th & 7 at ILL 48, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs KUQ1 3:35 4th & 2 at KU 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs SCQ2 4:51 4th & 3 at ILL 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at NUQ4 2:47 4th & 13 at NU 34, up 18Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

3rd of 134 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

   EIU
2. W

   KU
3. W

   CMU
4. W

   NEB
5. L

   PSU
6. W

   PUR
7. W

   MICH
8. L

   ORE
9. L

   MINN
10. W

    MSU
11. W

    RUTG
12. W

    NU
13. W

    SC

What moved it, 2024

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+2.21
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.63

Game by game

• EIUW 45-0 vs EIU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• KUW 23-17 vs KU35% → 88%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• CMUW 30-9 vs CMU91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• NEBW 31-24 at NEB24% → 45%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +3, Possession & field position +2
• PSUL 7-21 at PSU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• PURW 50-49 vs PUR91% → 98%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +14, Clock +1
• MICHW 21-7 vs MICH35% → 98%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +2
• OREL 9-38 at ORE7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• MINNL 17-25 vs MINN41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• MSUW 38-16 vs MSU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts −2
• RUTGW 38-31 at RUTG43% → 96%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• NUW 38-28 at NU74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• SCW 21-17 vs SC28% → 95%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −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.