Indiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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.
  Offense0.008th
  Defense+0.1432nd
• 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.
  Offense37.2%11th
  Defense43.5%34th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1517th
  Defense+1.1872nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0946th
  Defense−0.0182nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.012nd
  Defense+0.3612th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%32nd
  Defense47.5%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.7%5th
  Defense33.7%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9423rd
  Defense2.9466th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%55th
  Defense15.3%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%12th
  Defense13.8%17th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   ILL
2. W
   IDHO
3. W
   WKU
4. L
   CIN
5. L
   NEB
6. L
   MICH
7. L
   MD
8. L
   RUTG
9. L
   PSU
10. L
    OSU
11. W
    MSU
12. L
    PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Indiana.

Players, 2022

1. Connor BazelakQB369 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 71st of 234 QBs
   1.02WAR0.23 to 1.93
2. Shaun ShiversRB130 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 88th of 384 RBs
   0.32WAR0.20 to 0.43
3. Josh HendersonRB83 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 152nd of 384 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.26
4. Cameron CamperWR58 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 70th of 455 WRs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.28
5. James EvansP64 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 36th of 102 punters
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.19
6. Emery SimmonsWR44 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 239th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. D.J. Matthews Jr.WR38 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 266th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
8. Charles CampbellPK17 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 40th of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68168137th of 129Roster talent: 681, 37th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419445th of 129Recruiting: 194, 45th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  25%25%114th of 128Returning production: 25%, 114th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.1−7.189th of 129SP+ rating: −7.1, 89th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 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 NEBQ4 14:42 4th & 3 at NEB 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at NEBQ3 3:39 4th & 1 at IU 11, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs WKUQ2 0:04 4th & 16 at WKU 40, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
4. vs PURQ4 7:18 4th & 7 at PUR 17, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
5. vs WKUQ2 5:34 4th & 1 at IU 13, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs WKUQ2 4:23 4th & 1 at IU 13, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at MSUQ4 5:36 4th & 4 at IU 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs PURQ3 2:03 4th & 3 at PUR 18, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

61st of 131 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

   ILL
2. W

   IDHO
3. W

   WKU
4. L

   CIN
5. L

   NEB
6. L

   MICH
7. L

   MD
8. L

   RUTG
9. L

   PSU
10. L

    OSU
11. W

    MSU
12. L

    PUR

What moved it, 2022

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−0.63
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.55

Game by game

• ILLW 23-20 vs ILL52% → 90%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +3
• IDHOW 35-22 vs IDHO95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• WKUW 33-30 vs WKU73% → 73%Before kickoff +23 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −24
• CINL 24-45 at CIN15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• NEBL 21-35 at NEB32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• MICHL 10-31 vs MICH5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10
• MDL 33-38 vs MD21% → 4%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• RUTGL 17-24 at RUTG38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36
• PSUL 14-45 vs PSU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• OSUL 14-56 at OSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• MSUW 39-31 at MSU19% → 90%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +18
• PURL 16-30 vs PUR23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1

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.