Indiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0322nd
  Defense+0.0465th
• 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.
  Offense39.0%11th
  Defense39.1%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1533rd
  Defense+1.1179th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.106th
  Defense−0.0272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1344th
  Defense+0.1353rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.0%10th
  Defense44.7%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%32nd
  Defense26.3%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6521st
  Defense2.8254th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%42nd
  Defense20.0%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%64th
  Defense17.2%60th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   OSU
2. W
   UVA
3. W
   GASO
4. L
   PSU
5. W
   CHSO
6. L
   MICH
7. L
   MSU
8. L
   MD
9. L
   WIS
10. W
    ILL
11. W
    RUTG
12. L
    PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Indiana.

Players, 2017

1. Richard LagowQB272 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 74th of 226 QBs
   1.04WAR0.50 to 1.52
2. Peyton RamseyQB202 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 104th of 226 QBs
   0.74WAR0.41 to 1.11
3. Morgan EllisonRB95 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 135th of 352 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.31
4. Simmie Cobbs Jr.WR89 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 33rd of 426 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.30
5. Cole GestRB67 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 205th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
6. Luke TimianWR83 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 146th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.19
7. Griffin OakesPK14 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 78th of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.13
8. Haydon WhiteheadP65 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 39th of 95 punters
   0.06WAR−0.05 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 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54854861st of 130Roster talent: 548, 61st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417454th of 130Recruiting: 174, 54th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%60th of 128Returning production: 64%, 60th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.2+10.232nd of 128SP+ rating: +10.2, 32nd of 128 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, 2017

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.29 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 MSUQ4 12:29 4th & 1 at MSU 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.7 pts
2. at ILLQ4 10:42 4th & 2 at ILL 42, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
3. vs MICHQ4 12:33 4th & 1 at IU 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
4. at MDQ3 1:56 4th & 3 at MD 23, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at ILLQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at IU 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at PURQ2 11:51 4th & 1 at PUR 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs RUTGQ2 9:09 4th & 2 at RUTG 2, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at ILLQ4 3:58 4th & 2 at ILL 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

99th of 130 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. L

   OSU
2. W

   UVA
3. W

   GASO
4. L

   PSU
5. W

   CHSO
6. L

   MICH
7. L

   MSU
8. L

   MD
9. L

   WIS
10. W

    ILL
11. W

    RUTG
12. L

    PUR

What moved it, 2017

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−0.68
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.07

Game by game

• OSUL 21-49 vs OSU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• UVAW 34-17 at UVA57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• GASOW 52-17 vs GASO94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• PSUL 14-45 at PSU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• CHSOW 27-0 vs CHSO97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• MICHL 20-27 vs MICH26% → 23%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −16
• MSUL 9-17 at MSU34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• MDL 39-42 at MD66% → 5%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• WISL 17-45 vs WIS22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29
• ILLW 24-14 at ILL74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• RUTGW 41-0 vs RUTG77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +24
• PURL 24-31 at PUR46% → 3%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −36, 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.