Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0626th
  Defense+0.0471st
• 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.
  Offense42.1%34th
  Defense40.0%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1731st
  Defense+1.1767th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0126th
  Defense+0.0748th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1340th
  Defense+0.0285th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%30th
  Defense46.6%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.7%50th
  Defense27.7%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5916th
  Defense2.9247th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%34th
  Defense21.0%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%48th
  Defense17.3%68th

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, 2018

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

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

Players, 2018

1. J'Mar SmithQB450 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 42nd of 225 QBs
   1.64WAR0.92 to 2.35
2. Jaqwis DancyRB123 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 70th of 351 RBs
   0.44WAR0.33 to 0.54
3. Adrian HardyWR98 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 15th of 434 WRs
   0.30WAR0.14 to 0.44
4. Israel TuckerRB94 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 166th of 351 RBs
   0.26WAR0.20 to 0.32
5. Kam McKnightRB67 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 199th of 351 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.27
6. Teddy VealWR90 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 50th of 434 WRs
   0.19WAR0.06 to 0.32
7. Bailey HalePK21 plays · +0.339 pts/play · 31st of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
8. Davan DyerP54 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 30th of 91 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47847877th of 130Roster talent: 478, 77th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13913985th of 130Recruiting: 139, 85th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%43rd of 129Returning production: 75%, 43rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.9−6.994th of 130SP+ rating: −6.9, 94th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.12 of the 0.16 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 UNTQ4 4:28 4th & 1 at LT 21, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
2. at UNTQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at midfield, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at UNTQ2 0:57 4th & 11 at UNT 35, down 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
4. vs WKUQ3 11:53 4th & 3 at WKU 3, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at USAQ3 6:59 4th & 2 at LT 20, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs WKUQ3 2:49 4th & 5 at WKU 33, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs WKUQ4 1:05 4th & 9 at WKU 14, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UTSAQ2 14:14 4th & 2 at UTSA 29, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

60th 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

   USA
2. W

   SOU
3. L

   LSU
4. W

   UNT
5. L

   UAB
6. W

   UTSA
7. W

   UTEP
8. W

   FAU
9. L

   MSST
10. W

    RICE
11. L

    USM
12. L

    WKU
13. W

    HAW

What moved it, 2018

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+0.36
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.51

Game by game

• USAW 30-26 at USA77% → 92%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• SOUW 54-17 vs SOU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• LSUL 21-38 at LSU13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18
• UNTW 29-27 at UNT32% → 92%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +50, Clock +4
• UABL 7-28 vs UAB68% → 1%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −62, Clock −2
• UTSAW 31-3 at UTSA84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21
• UTEPW 31-24 vs UTEP93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• FAUW 21-13 at FAU43% → 97%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• MSSTL 3-45 at MSST6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• RICEW 28-13 vs RICE94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11
• USML 20-21 at USM46% → 7%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• WKUL 15-30 vs WKU79% → 2%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −63, Clock −3
• HAWW 31-14 vs HAW59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +38, 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.