Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.3297th
  Defense+0.1917th
• 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.
  Offense53.1%99th
  Defense48.3%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2467th
  Defense+1.2040th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1886th
  Defense+0.1231st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4596th
  Defense+0.2815th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.9%98th
  Defense52.5%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.
  Offense43.6%98th
  Defense37.6%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1270th
  Defense2.9946th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%80th
  Defense18.8%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%74th
  Defense15.9%46th

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, 2016

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
   ARK
2. W
   SCST
3. L
   TTU
4. L
   MTSU
5. W
   UTEP
6. W
   WKU
7. W
   MASS
8. W
   FIU
9. W
   RICE
10. W
    UNT
11. W
    UTSA
12. L
    USM
13. L
    WKU
14. W
    NAVY

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

Players, 2016

1. Ryan HigginsQB451 plays · +0.335 pts/play · 5th of 218 QBs
   2.83WAR2.13 to 3.64
2. Carlos HendersonWR112 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 3rd of 417 WRs
   0.53WAR0.39 to 0.68
3. Trent TaylorWR138 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 4th of 417 WRs
   0.46WAR0.30 to 0.64
4. Jarred CraftRB185 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 85th of 347 RBs
   0.38WAR0.23 to 0.52
5. Jonathan BarnesPK18 plays · +0.469 pts/play · 23rd of 116 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
6. Gerald ShouseP27 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 76th of 82 punters
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.08
7. Kam McKnightRB21 plays · +0.040 pts/play · 280th of 347 RBs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.05
8. Boston ScottRB10 plays · +0.012 pts/play · 296th of 347 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.02

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45145178th of 128Roster talent: 451, 78th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13013083rd of 128Recruiting: 130, 83rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%112th of 128Returning production: 36%, 112th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.1+3.160th of 128SP+ rating: +3.1, 60th 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, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.13 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 MTSUQ3 7:40 4th & 1 at LT 38, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs WKUQ4 2:23 4th & 4 at LT 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at ARKQ3 4:58 4th & 3 at ARK 3, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. at FIUQ2 10:40 4th & 3 at FIU 41, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at USMQ2 9:40 4th & 1 at LT 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at MTSUQ2 3:00 4th & 4 at MTSU 32, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at MTSUQ2 10:31 4th & 3 at MTSU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at FIUQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at FIU 47, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

60th 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. L

   ARK
2. W

   SCST
3. L

   TTU
4. L

   MTSU
5. W

   UTEP
6. W

   WKU
7. W

   MASS
8. W

   FIU
9. W

   RICE
10. W

    UNT
11. W

    UTSA
12. L

    USM
13. L

    WKU
14. W

    NAVY

What moved it, 2016

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+0.38
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.31

Game by game

• ARKL 20-21 at ARK8% → 5%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• SCSTW 53-24 vs SCST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• TTUL 45-59 at TTU17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21
• MTSUL 34-38 at MTSU31% → 7%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position +1
• UTEPW 28-7 vs UTEP89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• WKUW 55-52 vs WKU51% → 95%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• MASSW 56-28 at MASS85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21
• FIUW 44-24 at FIU82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• RICEW 61-16 vs RICE93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• UNTW 45-24 at UNT92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• UTSAW 63-35 vs UTSA87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• USML 24-39 at USM78% → 1%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −58, Clock +3
• WKUL 44-58 at WKU28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• NAVYW 48-45 at NAVY49% → 95%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +49, Clock +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.