Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2389th
  Defense+0.0569th
• 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.
  Offense49.0%89th
  Defense42.4%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2572nd
  Defense+1.1470th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1065th
  Defense−0.0993rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3589th
  Defense+0.1839th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.9%94th
  Defense47.0%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.1%80th
  Defense33.8%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8446th
  Defense2.3891st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.5%12th
  Defense26.2%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.3%6th
  Defense2.1%61st

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, 2015

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. W
   SOU
2. L
   WKU
3. L
   KSU
4. W
   FIU
5. W
   UL
6. W
   UTSA
7. L
   MSST
8. W
   MTSU
9. W
   RICE
10. W
    UNT
11. W
    UTEP
12. L
    USM
13. W
    ARST

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

Players, 2015

1. Jeff DriskelQB399 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 37th of 205 QBs
   1.86WAR1.26 to 2.47
2. Trent TaylorWR99 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 13th of 411 WRs
   0.40WAR0.24 to 0.57
3. Kenneth DixonRB162 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 62nd of 333 RBs
   0.31WAR0.16 to 0.45
4. Carlos HendersonWR56 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 89th of 411 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
5. Jonathan BarnesPK19 plays · +0.475 pts/play · 21st of 115 kickers
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
6. Paul TurnerWR46 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 166th of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Jarred CraftRB46 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 229th of 333 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 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 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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43843877th of 128Roster talent: 438, 77th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13113181st of 128Recruiting: 131, 81st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%95th of 127Returning production: 46%, 95th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.3+8.345th of 128SP+ rating: +8.3, 45th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 WKUQ3 6:33 4th & 1 at midfield, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. at UTSAQ4 13:38 4th & 10 at UTSA 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
3. vs ARSTQ3 10:00 4th & 3 at ARST 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs FIUQ4 6:36 4th & 1 at FIU 11, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at MSSTQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at LT 39, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at MSSTQ2 2:44 4th & 1 at LT 23, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at KSUQ4 2:37 4th & 9 at LT 21, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs ULQ2 7:00 4th & 3 at UL 33, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

42nd 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.

1. W

   SOU
2. L

   WKU
3. L

   KSU
4. W

   FIU
5. W

   UL
6. W

   UTSA
7. L

   MSST
8. W

   MTSU
9. W

   RICE
10. W

    UNT
11. W

    UTEP
12. L

    USM
13. W

    ARST

What moved it, 2015

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+1.09
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.67

Game by game

• SOUW 62-15 vs SOU68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33
• WKUL 38-41 at WKU41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• KSUL 33-39 at KSU25% → 11%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +13
• FIUW 27-17 vs FIU81% → 96%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• ULW 43-14 vs UL82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• UTSAW 34-31 at UTSA79% → 83%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +29, Clock +3
• MSSTL 20-45 at MSST12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• MTSUW 45-16 vs MTSU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −1
• RICEW 42-17 at RICE73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• UNTW 56-13 vs UNT96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +5
• UTEPW 17-15 at UTEP93% → 76%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −17: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position +2
• USML 24-58 vs USM64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −62, Clock −2
• ARSTW 47-28 vs ARST43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +3

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.