Indiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0834th
  Defense+0.1438th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%64th
  Defense44.2%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.077th
  Defense+1.2148th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0641st
  Defense+0.0366th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1133rd
  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.
  Offense49.3%62nd
  Defense48.6%38th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.2%55th
  Defense34.8%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1278th
  Defense3.0625th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%79th
  Defense16.9%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%60th
  Defense15.7%40th

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, 2018

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
   FIU
2. W
   UVA
3. W
   BALL
4. L
   MSU
5. W
   RUTG
6. L
   OSU
7. L
   IOWA
8. L
   PSU
9. L
   MINN
10. W
    MD
11. L
    MICH
12. L
    PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Indiana.

Players, 2018

1. Peyton RamseyQB481 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 16th of 225 QBs
   2.15WAR1.42 to 2.87
2. Stevie Scott IIIRB219 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 11th of 351 RBs
   0.78WAR0.62 to 0.94
3. Nick WestbrookWR60 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 125th of 434 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
4. Donavan HaleWR54 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 129th of 434 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
5. Logan JustusPK16 plays · +0.395 pts/play · 40th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. J-Shun Harris IIWR38 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 180th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Ty FryfogleWR39 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 210th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Whop PhilyorWR23 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 251st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56456457th of 130Roster talent: 564, 57th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17717757th of 130Recruiting: 177, 57th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  29%29%118th of 129Returning production: 29%, 118th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.6+1.670th of 130SP+ rating: +1.6, 70th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.16 of the 0.26 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 IOWAQ4 3:56 4th & 8 at IOWA 20, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.2 pts
2. vs UVAQ4 3:29 4th & 5 at UVA 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. at MINNQ2 6:19 4th & 2 at MINN 46, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs MSUQ2 1:37 4th & 1 at IU 30, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs UVAQ3 6:13 4th & 15 at UVA 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. at FIUQ2 11:42 4th & 1 at IU 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at RUTGQ4 7:52 4th & 9 at RUTG 18, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
8. vs IOWAQ3 10:48 4th & 2 at IU 28, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

72nd 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. W

   FIU
2. W

   UVA
3. W

   BALL
4. L

   MSU
5. W

   RUTG
6. L

   OSU
7. L

   IOWA
8. L

   PSU
9. L

   MINN
10. W

    MD
11. L

    MICH
12. L

    PUR

What moved it, 2018

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−0.66
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.48

Game by game

• FIUW 38-28 at FIU81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• UVAW 20-16 vs UVA62% → 81%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −4
• BALLW 38-10 vs BALL81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• MSUL 21-35 vs MSU27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• RUTGW 24-17 at RUTG83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• OSUL 26-49 at OSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• IOWAL 16-42 vs IOWA36% → 13%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• PSUL 28-33 vs PSU14% → 9%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −24, Clock −2
• MINNL 31-38 at MINN54% → 3%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position −2
• MDW 34-32 vs MD48% → 89%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• MICHL 20-31 at MICH3% → 2%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −8, Timeouts −1
• PURL 21-28 vs PUR35% → 5%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3

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.