Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0217th
  Defense+0.0951st
• 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.
  Offense41.6%41st
  Defense43.7%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1510th
  Defense+1.2356th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0334th
  Defense+0.0459th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1231st
  Defense+0.1941st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.5%55th
  Defense49.3%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.2%17th
  Defense30.9%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0563rd
  Defense2.8949th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%63rd
  Defense19.9%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.7%19th
  Defense14.7%32nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   TOL
2. L
   MISS
3. W
   EMU
4. L
   SC
5. L
   UGA
6. L
   TEX
7. L
   TENN
8. W
   AUB
9. W
   FLA
10. W
    TNTC
11. L
    VAN
12. L
    LOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kentucky.

Players, 2025

1. Cutter BoleyQB254 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 100th of 231 QBs
   0.80WAR0.32 to 1.25
2. Seth McGowanRB143 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 38th of 365 RBs
   0.32WAR0.25 to 0.39
3. Dante DowdellRB85 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 169th of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
4. Zach CalzadaQB69 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 183rd of 231 QBs
   0.14WAR0.03 to 0.25
5. Jacob KauwePK16 plays · +0.308 pts/play · 45th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Josh KattusTE22 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 57th of 213 TEs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Kendrick LawWR51 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 268th of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.15
8. Willie RodriguezTE30 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 103rd of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.10

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76376327th of 134Roster talent: 763, 27th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22822823rd of 134Recruiting: 228, 23rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%77th of 132Returning production: 27%, 77th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.8+1.865th of 134SP+ rating: +1.8, 65th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.09 of the 0.12 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 MISSQ4 7:50 4th & 9 at MISS 20, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.9 pts
2. at SCQ2 0:00 4th & 18 at UK 43, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.7 pts
3. vs TEXQ4 8:07 4th & 2 at UK 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. at AUBQ4 2:12 4th & 4 at AUB 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs TEXQ3 4:09 4th & 4 at TEX 28, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs EMUQ3 8:13 4th & 4 at EMU 33, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs TEXQ4 2:36 4th & 7 at UK 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs TEXQ1 6:12 4th & 1 at UK 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

71st of 136 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

   TOL
2. L

   MISS
3. W

   EMU
4. L

   SC
5. L

   UGA
6. L

   TEX
7. L

   TENN
8. W

   AUB
9. W

   FLA
10. W

    TNTC
11. L

    VAN
12. L

    LOU

What moved it, 2025

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−0.76
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.83

Game by game

• TOLW 24-16 vs TOL72% → 98%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• MISSL 23-30 vs MISS27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• EMUW 48-23 vs EMU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• SCL 13-35 at SC30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• UGAL 14-35 at UGA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• TEXL 13-16 vs TEX16% → 29%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard −36, Clock +6
• TENNL 34-56 vs TENN29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• AUBW 10-3 at AUB20% → 91%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• FLAW 38-7 vs FLA31% → 100%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +59, Other −1
• TNTCW 42-10 vs TNTC93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9
• VANL 17-45 at VAN28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29
• LOUL 0-41 at LOU52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −48, Possession & field position −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.