Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2170th
  Defense+0.0685th
• 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.
  Offense41.9%39th
  Defense37.6%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3291st
  Defense+1.2528th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0634th
  Defense−0.0287th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3683rd
  Defense+0.1667th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%35th
  Defense42.5%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.9%51st
  Defense29.7%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5013th
  Defense2.3991st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.9%9th
  Defense24.7%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense3.0%92nd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Louisiana Tech 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
   OU
2. W
   UL
3. W
   UNT
4. L
   NWST
5. L
   AUB
6. W
   UTEP
7. W
   UTSA
8. W
   USM
9. W
   WKU
10. W
    UAB
11. L
    ODU
12. W
    RICE
13. L
    MRSH
14. W
    ILL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisiana Tech.

Players, 2014

1. Cody SokolQB302 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 53rd of 199 QBs
   1.64WAR1.11 to 2.14
2. Kenneth DixonRB175 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 55th of 350 RBs
   0.33WAR0.17 to 0.49
3. Trent TaylorWR54 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 60th of 469 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
4. Carlos HendersonWR38 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 184th of 469 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
5. Paul TurnerWR37 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 213th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Jarred CraftRB49 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 235th of 350 RBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
7. Jonathan BarnesPK6 plays · +0.475 pts/play · 96th of 114 kickers
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
8. Hunter LeeRB29 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 274th of 350 RBs
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.08

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 Louisiana Tech'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Louisiana Tech'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 0.07 of the 0.11 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. at MRSHQ3 2:43 4th & 3 at MRSH 44, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. at MRSHQ3 8:20 4th & 1 at LT 15, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs UTSAQ4 11:17 4th & 4 at UTSA 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at MRSHQ4 5:01 4th & 6 at MRSH 32, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at UABQ4 12:23 4th & 4 at UAB 44, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at ULQ3 8:39 4th & 8 at UL 41, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs ILLQ3 13:21 4th & 3 at LT 38, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs UTSAQ2 10:19 4th & 4 at UTSA 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

7th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Louisiana Tech's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 13 of 14 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   OU
2. W

   UL
3. W

   UNT
4. L

   NWST
5. L

   AUB
6. W

   UTEP
7. W

   UTSA
8. W

   USM
9. W

   WKU
10. W

    UAB
11. L

    ODU
12. W

    RICE
13. L

    MRSH
14. W

    ILL

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Louisiana Tech'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+2.93
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.41

Game by game

• OUL 16-48 at OU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• ULW 48-20 at UL13% → 100%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +87: Scoreboard +72, Possession & field position +1
• UNTW 42-21 at UNT44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• NWSTL 27-30 vs NWST95% → 5%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −91: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• AUBL 17-45 at AUB2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• UTEPW 55-3 vs UTEP81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• UTSAW 27-20 vs UTSA69% → 95%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• USMW 31-20 at USM80% → 97%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• WKUW 59-10 vs WKU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42
• UABW 40-24 at UAB59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• RICEW 76-31 vs RICE67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• MRSHL 23-26 at MRSH14% → 7%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −21, Possession & field position +2
• ILLW 35-18 vs ILL62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from Louisiana Tech's side.

Closest call

LT 23-20 RICE (2019) - Louisiana Tech dropped to a 6.1% win probability before pulling it out.