Indiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1965th
  Defense+0.1449th
• 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.
  Offense42.5%46th
  Defense42.4%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2259th
  Defense+1.1668th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3398th
  Defense+0.1335th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.016th
  Defense+0.1762nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.7%83rd
  Defense44.6%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.7%1st
  Defense37.4%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1579th
  Defense2.8254th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.3%39th
  Defense21.6%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%30th
  Defense2.8%84th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Indiana 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
   INST
2. L
   BGSU
3. W
   MIZ
4. L
   MD
5. W
   UNT
6. L
   IOWA
7. L
   MSU
8. L
   MICH
9. L
   PSU
10. L
    RUTG
11. L
    OSU
12. W
    PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Indiana.

Players, 2014

1. Nate SudfeldQB122 plays · +0.346 pts/play · 121st of 199 QBs
   0.79WAR0.59 to 0.99
2. Tevin ColemanRB217 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 16th of 350 RBs
   0.52WAR0.31 to 0.74
3. Zander DiamontQB165 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 148th of 199 QBs
   0.36WAR0.08 to 0.65
4. Shane WynnWR64 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 87th of 469 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.26
5. Griffin OakesPK13 plays · +0.452 pts/play · 56th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. D'Angelo RobertsRB59 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 207th of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Erich TothP62 plays · +0.017 pts/play · 80th of 94 punters
   0.02WAR−0.07 to 0.10
8. Simmie Cobbs Jr.WR9 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 408th of 469 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03

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 Indiana'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Indiana'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 0.11 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 MIZQ4 6:34 4th & 2 at MIZ 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
2. at RUTGQ3 2:07 4th & 7 at IU 23, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
3. vs PURQ3 6:15 4th & 2 at PUR 24, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at IOWAQ3 10:19 4th & 2 at IU 48, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at OSUQ4 6:45 4th & 3 at IU 36, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs UNTQ2 9:38 4th & 1 at UNT 47, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs UNTQ2 5:26 4th & 3 at UNT 46, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs PSUQ4 10:48 4th & 5 at PSU 33, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

78th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Indiana's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   INST
2. L

   BGSU
3. W

   MIZ
4. L

   MD
5. W

   UNT
6. L

   IOWA
7. L

   MSU
8. L

   MICH
9. L

   PSU
10. L

    RUTG
11. L

    OSU
12. W

    PUR

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Indiana'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−0.76
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.48

Game by game

• INSTW 28-10 vs INST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• BGSUL 42-45 at BGSU49% → 20%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• MIZW 31-27 at MIZ16% → 82%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +39, Clock +3
• UNTW 49-24 vs UNT85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• IOWAL 29-45 at IOWA30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• MSUL 17-56 vs MSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• MICHL 10-34 at MICH22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25
• PSUL 7-13 vs PSU36% → 9%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −38, Clock −3
• RUTGL 23-45 at RUTG33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position −1
• OSUL 27-42 at OSU3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −6
• PURW 23-16 vs PUR55% → 90%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from Indiana's side.

Closest call

PSU 35-36 IU (2020) - Indiana dropped to a 3.1% win probability before pulling it out.