Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1351st
  Defense−0.0293rd
• 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.
  Offense45.2%64th
  Defense41.3%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1525th
  Defense+1.0989th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0332nd
  Defense−0.0689th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2464th
  Defense+0.0387th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.0%64th
  Defense47.0%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.2%78th
  Defense28.1%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9352nd
  Defense2.7762nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%56th
  Defense19.6%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%69th
  Defense22.9%83rd

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, 2019

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
   TEX
2. W
   GRAM
3. W
   BGSU
4. W
   FIU
5. W
   RICE
6. W
   MASS
7. W
   USM
8. W
   UTEP
9. W
   UNT
10. L
    MRSH
11. L
    UAB
12. W
    UTSA
13. W
    MIA

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

Players, 2019

1. J'Mar SmithQB325 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 80th of 228 QBs
   1.02WAR0.49 to 1.52
2. Justin HendersonRB172 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 42nd of 349 RBs
   0.55WAR0.36 to 0.70
3. Aaron AllenQB73 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 176th of 228 QBs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.32
4. Malik StanleyWR47 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 91st of 439 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
5. Adrian HardyWR50 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 121st of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.21
6. Israel TuckerRB51 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 248th of 349 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
7. Jaqwis DancyRB36 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 255th of 349 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
8. Bailey HalePK12 plays · +0.381 pts/play · 86th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50150178th of 130Roster talent: 501, 78th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214285th of 130Recruiting: 142, 85th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%36th of 130Returning production: 73%, 36th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.2+0.261st of 130SP+ rating: +0.2, 61st 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.12 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 RICEQ4 14:55 4th & 3 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at MRSHQ2 0:54 4th & 5 at LT 13, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
3. vs GRAMQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at LT 35, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs USMQ4 2:03 4th & 3 at USM 39, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at MIAQ2 1:49 4th & 5 at MIA 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at MRSHQ2 3:52 4th & 2 at LT 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs GRAMQ4 6:08 4th & 1 at LT 36, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs USMQ3 8:45 4th & 11 at USM 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

19th 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. L

   TEX
2. W

   GRAM
3. W

   BGSU
4. W

   FIU
5. W

   RICE
6. W

   MASS
7. W

   USM
8. W

   UTEP
9. W

   UNT
10. L

    MRSH
11. L

    UAB
12. W

    UTSA
13. W

    MIA

What moved it, 2019

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+1.83
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.41

Game by game

• TEXL 14-45 at TEX9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• GRAMW 20-14 vs GRAM98% → 95%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +8
• BGSUW 35-7 at BGSU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• FIUW 43-31 vs FIU69% → 97%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −1
• RICEW 23-20 at RICE77% → 88%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +13
• MASSW 69-21 vs MASS98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• USMW 45-30 vs USM42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +2
• UTEPW 42-21 at UTEP91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• UNTW 52-17 vs UNT64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36
• MRSHL 10-31 at MRSH34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• UABL 14-20 at UAB36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position +2
• UTSAW 41-27 vs UTSA93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12
• MIAW 14-0 at MIA33% → 99%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +60, 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.