Indiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2996th
  Defense−0.0394th
• 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.
  Offense52.4%99th
  Defense38.1%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2337th
  Defense+1.1877th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1467th
  Defense−0.0895th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4899th
  Defense+0.0186th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.6%99th
  Defense43.0%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.7%99th
  Defense27.8%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0959th
  Defense2.4098th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.1%54th
  Defense25.0%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%74th
  Defense22.0%98th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   WIU
3. W
   UCLA
4. W
   CLT
5. W
   MD
6. W
   NU
7. W
   NEB
8. W
   WASH
9. W
   MSU
10. W
    MICH
11. L
    OSU
12. W
    PUR
13. L
    ND

Bars above the line: better than expected for Indiana.

Players, 2024

1. Kurtis RourkeQB262 plays · +0.320 pts/play · 52nd of 232 QBs
   1.57WAR1.10 to 2.03
2. Justice EllisonRB124 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 84th of 373 RBs
   0.31WAR0.22 to 0.39
3. Elijah SarrattWR37 plays · +0.377 pts/play · 16th of 452 WRs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.35
4. Ty Son LawtonRB113 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 123rd of 373 RBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.31
5. Omar Cooper Jr.WR20 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 143rd of 452 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
6. James EvansP25 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 51st of 106 punters
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
7. Tayven JacksonQB22 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 218th of 232 QBs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Ke'Shawn WilliamsWR25 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 220th of 452 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66966957th of 131Roster talent: 669, 57th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918951st of 131Recruiting: 189, 51st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%71st of 130Returning production: 43%, 71st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.1+20.111th of 131SP+ rating: +20.1, 11th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.07 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 WASHQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at WASH 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at OSUQ2 1:41 4th & 15 at IU 30, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
3. vs MDQ4 2:33 4th & 5 at MD 39, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs WASHQ4 13:27 4th & 4 at IU 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs MICHQ2 7:04 4th & 12 at MICH 33, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs WASHQ2 14:47 4th & 3 at IU 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs FIUQ4 3:31 4th & 13 at FIU 30, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at NDQ2 3:26 4th & 4 at ND 16, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

20th of 134 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

   WIU
3. W

   UCLA
4. W

   CLT
5. W

   MD
6. W

   NU
7. W

   NEB
8. W

   WASH
9. W

   MSU
10. W

    MICH
11. L

    OSU
12. W

    PUR
13. L

    ND

What moved it, 2024

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+2.03
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.39

Game by game

• FIUW 31-7 vs FIU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• WIUW 77-3 vs WIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UCLAW 42-13 at UCLA60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +45
• CLTW 52-14 vs CLT96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MDW 42-28 vs MD69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• NUW 41-24 at NU81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• NEBW 56-7 vs NEB63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +38
• WASHW 31-17 vs WASH68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• MSUW 47-10 at MSU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• MICHW 20-15 vs MICH83% → 95%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• OSUL 15-38 at OSU21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24
• PURW 66-0 vs PUR95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• NDL 17-27 at ND30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −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.