Illinois

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1670th
  Defense+0.1625th
• 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.
  Offense47.8%90th
  Defense45.2%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1717th
  Defense+1.1876th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0437th
  Defense+0.0459th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3690th
  Defense+0.2721st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.3%87th
  Defense48.8%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.8%90th
  Defense35.8%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0462nd
  Defense2.8850th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%41st
  Defense18.8%49th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%49th
  Defense15.3%44th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   WIU
2. W
   DUKE
3. W
   WMU
4. L
   IU
5. W
   USC
6. W
   PUR
7. L
   OSU
8. L
   WASH
9. W
   RUTG
10. W
    MD
11. L
    WIS
12. W
    NU
13. W
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Illinois.

Players, 2025

1. Luke AltmyerQB352 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 44th of 231 QBs
   1.46WAR0.84 to 2.13
2. Hank BeattyWR70 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 50th of 451 WRs
   0.23WAR0.11 to 0.36
3. Hudson ClementWR47 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 63rd of 451 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.29
4. Ca'Lil ValentineRB97 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 174th of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Aidan LaugheryRB68 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 192nd of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
6. David OlanoPK17 plays · +0.353 pts/play · 22nd of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Justin BowickWR27 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 178th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
8. Collin DixonWR44 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.17

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66266264th of 134Roster talent: 662, 64th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020042nd of 134Recruiting: 200, 42nd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%35th of 132Returning production: 53%, 35th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.9+12.924th of 134SP+ rating: +12.9, 24th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.11 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 NUQ4 3:00 4th & 1 at NU 8, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.2 pts
2. vs NUQ2 2:07 4th & 3 at ILL 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at WISQ4 10:12 4th & 9 at ILL 28, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
4. at WISQ3 9:50 4th & 3 at ILL 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at WISQ4 3:30 4th & 25 at ILL 44, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs NUQ4 1:34 4th & 6 at NU 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at IUQ2 14:46 4th & 3 at ILL 9, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs OSUQ4 1:05 4th & 6 at OSU 25, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

47th of 136 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

   WIU
2. W

   DUKE
3. W

   WMU
4. L

   IU
5. W

   USC
6. W

   PUR
7. L

   OSU
8. L

   WASH
9. W

   RUTG
10. W

    MD
11. L

    WIS
12. W

    NU
13. W

    TENN

What moved it, 2025

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+0.86
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• WIUW 52-3 vs WIU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• DUKEW 45-19 at DUKE58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• WMUW 38-0 vs WMU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• IUL 10-63 at IU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +1
• USCW 34-32 vs USC32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −1
• PURW 43-27 at PUR73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• OSUL 16-34 vs OSU15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• WASHL 25-42 at WASH39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• RUTGW 35-13 vs RUTG79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +1
• MDW 24-6 vs MD87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• WISL 10-27 at WIS74% → 1%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −52, Timeouts −3
• NUW 20-13 vs NU72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• TENNW 30-28 vs TENN43% → 95%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +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.