Kentucky

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.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense+0.1147th
• 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.
  Offense41.5%35th
  Defense46.0%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.159th
  Defense+1.1094th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0222nd
  Defense+0.1041st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.019th
  Defense+0.1262nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%48th
  Defense52.0%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.9%24th
  Defense31.4%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0247th
  Defense3.0049th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%41st
  Defense18.8%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.5%11th
  Defense16.9%58th

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 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
   USM
2. L
   SC
3. L
   UGA
4. W
   OHIO
5. W
   MISS
6. L
   VAN
7. L
   FLA
8. L
   AUB
9. L
   TENN
10. W
    MUR
11. L
    TEX
12. L
    LOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kentucky.

Players, 2024

1. Brock VandagriffQB256 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 107th of 232 QBs
   0.74WAR0.25 to 1.26
2. Dane KeyWR46 plays · +0.357 pts/play · 9th of 452 WRs
   0.31WAR0.19 to 0.42
3. Demie Sumo-KarngbayeRB120 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 103rd of 373 RBs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.34
4. Gavin WimsattQB58 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 169th of 232 QBs
   0.23WAR0.10 to 0.34
5. Jamarion WilcoxRB82 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 157th of 373 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.24
6. Alex RaynorPK12 plays · +0.386 pts/play · 47th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
7. Ja'Mori MaclinWR13 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 202nd of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. Wilson BerryP12 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 68th of 106 punters
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  78878824th of 131Roster talent: 788, 24th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22422422nd of 131Recruiting: 224, 22nd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%85th of 130Returning production: 36%, 85th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.5+5.544th of 131SP+ rating: +5.5, 44th 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 Kentucky's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.09 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 SCQ2 1:55 4th & 1 at SC 14, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at MISSQ3 6:31 4th & 3 at MISS 30, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs UGAQ3 9:03 4th & 2 at UGA 22, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at FLAQ2 9:28 4th & 1 at UK 25, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at MISSQ2 7:52 4th & 2 at midfield, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at TENNQ4 2:19 4th & 20 at UK 37, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs VANQ4 1:06 4th & 21 at UK 41, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs USMQ2 7:45 4th & 1 at USM 23, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

127th of 134 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

   USM
2. L

   SC
3. L

   UGA
4. W

   OHIO
5. W

   MISS
6. L

   VAN
7. L

   FLA
8. L

   AUB
9. L

   TENN
10. W

    MUR
11. L

    TEX
12. L

    LOU

What moved it, 2024

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−2.19
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• USMW 31-0 vs USM95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• SCL 6-31 vs SC76% → 0%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −68, Clock −2
• UGAL 12-13 vs UGA6% → 21%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +15: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• OHIOW 41-6 vs OHIO92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• MISSW 20-17 at MISS12% → 92%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• VANL 13-20 vs VAN82% → 5%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• FLAL 20-48 at FLA50% → 10%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• AUBL 10-24 vs AUB46% → 2%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• TENNL 18-28 at TENN11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16
• MURW 48-6 vs MUR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TEXL 14-31 at TEX9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14
• LOUL 14-41 vs LOU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1

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.