Indiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0523rd
  Defense+0.2112th
• 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.
  Offense40.8%37th
  Defense45.8%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1921st
  Defense+1.2168th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0531st
  Defense+0.1333rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1733rd
  Defense+0.379th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.6%43rd
  Defense51.3%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.6%30th
  Defense32.6%21st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2673rd
  Defense3.2423rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.0%94th
  Defense15.6%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%38th
  Defense16.6%56th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   INST
3. L
   LOU
4. W
   AKR
5. L
   MD
6. L
   MICH
7. L
   RUTG
8. L
   PSU
9. W
   WIS
10. L
    ILL
11. L
    MSU
12. L
    PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Indiana.

Players, 2023

1. Brendan SorsbyQB242 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 94th of 250 QBs
   0.93WAR0.37 to 1.45
2. Tayven JacksonQB104 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 155th of 250 QBs
   0.33WAR0.09 to 0.55
3. Donaven McCulleyWR52 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 108th of 457 WRs
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.28
4. Trent HowlandRB62 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 179th of 383 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
5. James EvansP46 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 27th of 103 punters
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.20
6. Josh HendersonRB71 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 201st of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
7. Jaylin LucasRB81 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 227th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.18
8. Christian TurnerRB38 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 278th of 383 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67867847th of 130Roster talent: 678, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818853rd of 130Recruiting: 188, 53rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%97th of 128Returning production: 36%, 97th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.4−7.490th of 130SP+ rating: −7.4, 90th 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, 2023

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.22 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 AKRQ4 8:05 4th & 1 at AKR 1, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it5.5 pts
2. vs MSUQ4 0:12 4th & 1 at MSU 27, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal4.2 pts
3. at PSUQ4 5:53 4th & 1 at IU 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.4 pts
4. at PURQ4 5:09 4th & 3 at PUR 21, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.1 pts
5. at ILLQ3 7:18 4th & 4 at ILL 38, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
6. vs WISQ4 11:48 4th & 2 at IU 12, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
7. vs LOUQ4 11:18 4th & 2 at IU 22, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
8. vs OSUQ4 10:07 4th & 13 at OSU 42, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

104th of 133 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

   INST
3. L

   LOU
4. W

   AKR
5. L

   MD
6. L

   MICH
7. L

   RUTG
8. L

   PSU
9. W

   WIS
10. L

    ILL
11. L

    MSU
12. L

    PUR

What moved it, 2023

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−1.06
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.52

Game by game

• OSUL 3-23 vs OSU3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −9
• INSTW 41-7 vs INST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• LOUL 14-21 vs LOU24% → 5%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• AKRW 29-27 vs AKR85% → 47%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −10, Clock −2
• MDL 17-44 at MD13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• MICHL 7-52 at MICH2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• RUTGL 14-31 vs RUTG32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• PSUL 24-33 at PSU2% → 3%Before kickoff −48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −7
• WISW 20-14 vs WIS26% → 92%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +4
• ILLL 45-48 at ILL36% → 99%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +60, Clock +2
• MSUL 21-24 vs MSU59% → 6%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• PURL 31-35 at PUR36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: 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.