Indiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1776th
  Defense+0.1522nd
• 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%72nd
  Defense44.0%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1948th
  Defense+1.3113th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0546th
  Defense+0.1224th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3487th
  Defense+0.2133rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%74th
  Defense48.6%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.
  Offense36.1%65th
  Defense35.2%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8243rd
  Defense2.8550th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%54th
  Defense20.9%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense2.0%54th

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, 2015

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
   SIU
2. W
   FIU
3. W
   WKU
4. W
   WAKE
5. L
   OSU
6. L
   PSU
7. L
   RUTG
8. L
   MSU
9. L
   IOWA
10. L
    MICH
11. W
    MD
12. W
    PUR
13. L
    DUKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Indiana.

Players, 2015

1. Nate SudfeldQB389 plays · +0.370 pts/play · 10th of 205 QBs
   2.69WAR1.99 to 3.33
2. Jordan HowardRB169 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 8th of 333 RBs
   0.67WAR0.52 to 0.81
3. Griffin OakesPK25 plays · +0.452 pts/play · 6th of 115 kickers
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.28
4. Ricky JonesWR77 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 72nd of 411 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.30
5. Mitchell PaigeWR68 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 84th of 411 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.28
6. Simmie Cobbs Jr.WR82 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 114th of 411 WRs
   0.16WAR0.03 to 0.29
7. Devine ReddingRB219 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 171st of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR−0.02 to 0.32
8. Zander DiamontQB49 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 188th of 205 QBs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.19

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55955954th of 128Roster talent: 559, 54th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17817850th of 128Recruiting: 178, 50th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%120th of 127Returning production: 27%, 120th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.4+0.474th of 128SP+ rating: +0.4, 74th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.15 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 SIUQ4 6:00 4th & 6 at SIU 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs SIUQ4 9:08 4th & 4 at SIU 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at MSUQ3 7:52 4th & 1 at IU 27, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. at MDQ2 8:00 4th & 2 at MD 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at PSUQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at IU 34, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs OSUQ4 6:01 4th & 5 at IU 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs FIUQ2 9:11 4th & 3 at FIU 10, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs IOWAQ4 2:24 4th & 9 at IOWA 11, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

60th 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.

1. W

   SIU
2. W

   FIU
3. W

   WKU
4. W

   WAKE
5. L

   OSU
6. L

   PSU
7. L

   RUTG
8. L

   MSU
9. L

   IOWA
10. L

    MICH
11. W

    MD
12. W

    PUR
13. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2015

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+0.24
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.37

Game by game

• SIUW 48-47 vs SIU75% → 95%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• FIUW 36-22 vs FIU67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• WKUW 38-35 vs WKU55% → 92%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• WAKEW 31-24 at WAKE56% → 97%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• OSUL 27-34 vs OSU9% → 14%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• PSUL 7-29 at PSU23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26
• RUTGL 52-55 vs RUTG65% → 6%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• MSUL 26-52 at MSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −13
• IOWAL 27-35 vs IOWA30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• MICHL 41-48 vs MICH21% → 23%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −15
• MDW 47-28 at MD54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• PURW 54-36 at PUR62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• DUKEL 41-44 at DUKE54% → 17%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts +20

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.