Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1878th
  Defense+0.0463rd
• 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.
  Offense46.5%82nd
  Defense46.2%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0916th
  Defense+1.1081st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1888th
  Defense+0.0938th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2060th
  Defense+0.0184th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%74th
  Defense50.3%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.9%92nd
  Defense35.6%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2791st
  Defense3.0231st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.8%82nd
  Defense18.8%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%73rd
  Defense14.6%27th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   NWST
2. L
   MSST
3. W
   WKU
4. L
   SC
5. W
   USA
6. L
   UAB
7. L
   USM
8. W
   RICE
9. L
   UNT
10. L
    FAU
11. W
    UTEP
12. W
    UTSA
13. W
    SMU

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

Players, 2017

1. J'Mar SmithQB415 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 40th of 226 QBs
   1.55WAR0.80 to 2.34
2. Boston ScottRB160 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 23rd of 352 RBs
   0.55WAR0.42 to 0.68
3. Jonathan BarnesPK29 plays · +0.465 pts/play · 1st of 110 kickers
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.37
4. Teddy VealWR90 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 25th of 426 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.30
5. Jarred CraftRB106 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 179th of 352 RBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.26
6. Rhashid BonnetteWR43 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 170th of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Kam McKnightRB30 plays · +0.005 pts/play · 292nd of 352 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.04 to 0.04

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39439486th of 130Roster talent: 394, 86th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12812887th of 130Recruiting: 128, 87th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  23%23%120th of 128Returning production: 23%, 120th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.5−5.592nd of 128SP+ rating: −5.5, 92nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.09 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. vs USMQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at USM 43, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs UNTQ4 13:35 4th & 2 at UNT 17, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs FAUQ3 10:53 4th & 11 at FAU 23, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
4. at SCQ2 5:23 4th & 3 at SC 35, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs USAQ2 4:48 4th & 1 at LT 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs UTSAQ4 12:20 4th & 5 at UTSA 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs USMQ2 0:08 4th & 10 at USM 39, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at WKUQ3 7:32 4th & 4 at WKU 48, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

59th of 130 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

   NWST
2. L

   MSST
3. W

   WKU
4. L

   SC
5. W

   USA
6. L

   UAB
7. L

   USM
8. W

   RICE
9. L

   UNT
10. L

    FAU
11. W

    UTEP
12. W

    UTSA
13. W

    SMU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.78
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.02

Game by game

• NWSTW 52-24 vs NWST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MSSTL 21-57 vs MSST15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• WKUW 23-22 at WKU34% → 91%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +53, Possession & field position −2
• SCL 16-17 at SC19% → 8%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +1
• USAW 34-16 vs USA76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• UABL 22-23 at UAB73% → 30%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −11, Possession & field position +2
• USML 27-34 vs USM49% → 15%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −18
• RICEW 42-28 at RICE78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• UNTL 23-24 vs UNT53% → 13%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• FAUL 23-48 vs FAU31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −37
• UTEPW 42-21 at UTEP86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• UTSAW 20-6 vs UTSA39% → 98%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +1
• SMUW 51-10 at SMU32% → 100%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +65

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.