Kentucky

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.
  Offense+0.0423rd
  Defense−0.0293rd
• 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.
  Offense40.1%29th
  Defense37.3%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2028th
  Defense+1.2163rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0115th
  Defense−0.0288th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1426th
  Defense+0.0691st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%33rd
  Defense43.1%85th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.8%28th
  Defense25.8%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0239th
  Defense2.9371st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.8%6th
  Defense19.3%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%24th
  Defense14.2%22nd

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 Kentucky 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
   M-OH
2. W
   FLA
3. W
   YSU
4. W
   NIU
5. L
   MISS
6. L
   SC
7. W
   MSST
8. L
   TENN
9. W
   MIZ
10. L
    VAN
11. L
    UGA
12. W
    LOU
13. L
    IOWA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kentucky.

Players, 2022

1. Will LevisQB278 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 63rd of 234 QBs
   1.23WAR0.76 to 1.81
2. Chris Rodriguez Jr.RB172 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 19th of 384 RBs
   0.59WAR0.44 to 0.74
3. JuTahn McClainRB64 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 192nd of 384 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
4. Dane KeyWR33 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 115th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Barion BrownWR57 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 183rd of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.21
6. Kavosiey SmokeRB42 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 246th of 384 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
7. Tayvion RobinsonWR39 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 227th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
8. Jordan DingleTE24 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 58th of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.04 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 Kentucky'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.
  73773727th of 129Roster talent: 737, 27th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22022025th of 129Recruiting: 220, 25th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%59th of 128Returning production: 62%, 59th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.0+13.025th of 129SP+ rating: +13.0, 25th 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 Kentucky's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 MSSTQ3 11:34 4th & 2 at MSST 19, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at FLAQ3 6:35 4th & 3 at FLA 6, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at MIZQ2 0:34 4th & 4 at MIZ 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs NIUQ3 3:04 4th & 3 at NIU 31, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at MIZQ4 0:38 4th & 7 at MIZ 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs VANQ2 4:15 4th & 2 at VAN 49, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs IOWAQ1 5:14 4th & 2 at IOWA 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs LOUQ2 12:48 4th & 4 at LOU 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

75th of 131 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Kentucky's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   M-OH
2. W

   FLA
3. W

   YSU
4. W

   NIU
5. L

   MISS
6. L

   SC
7. W

   MSST
8. L

   TENN
9. W

   MIZ
10. L

    VAN
11. L

    UGA
12. W

    LOU
13. L

    IOWA

What moved it, 2022

Every game starts at Kentucky'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−0.15
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• M-OHW 37-13 vs M-OH86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• FLAW 26-16 at FLA39% → 97%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• YSUW 31-0 vs YSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• NIUW 31-23 vs NIU95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• MISSL 19-22 at MISS40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• SCL 14-24 vs SC65% → 2%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• MSSTW 27-17 vs MSST44% → 97%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• TENNL 6-44 at TENN23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26
• MIZW 21-17 at MIZ51% → 88%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +41, Clock +4
• VANL 21-24 vs VAN87% → 14%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position −4
• UGAL 6-16 vs UGA7% → 3%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• LOUW 26-13 vs LOU61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• IOWAL 0-21 vs IOWA42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Kentucky's side.

Closest call

APSU 13-49 UK (2016) - Kentucky dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.