Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0115th
  Defense+0.1348th
• 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.
  Offense38.8%21st
  Defense44.8%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2029th
  Defense+1.2356th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0956th
  Defense+0.1329th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0510th
  Defense+0.1367th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.8%14th
  Defense49.8%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.9%37th
  Defense33.0%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7837th
  Defense2.9346th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%34th
  Defense18.2%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%26th
  Defense12.8%12th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   USM
2. W
   HCU
3. L
   BYU
4. W
   UTEP
5. L
   MRSH
6. L
   UTSA
7. W
   UAB
8. W
   UNT
9. L
   TCU
10. L
    GASO

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

Players, 2020

1. Israel TuckerRB132 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 33rd of 338 RBs
   0.46WAR0.36 to 0.55
2. Luke AnthonyQB184 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 106th of 212 QBs
   0.30WAR−0.06 to 0.61
3. Justin HendersonRB64 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 155th of 338 RBs
   0.21WAR0.15 to 0.26
4. Adrian HardyWR47 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 122nd of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
5. Aaron AllenQB105 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 169th of 212 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.08 to 0.25
6. Isaiah GrahamWR27 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 254th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
7. Smoke HarrisWR36 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 285th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09
8. Jacob BarnesPK41 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 48th of 97 kickers
   0.04WAR−0.03 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46746780th of 127Roster talent: 467, 80th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15015082nd of 127Recruiting: 150, 82nd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%98th of 127Returning production: 46%, 98th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.0−7.098th of 127SP+ rating: −7.0, 98th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.06 of the 0.10 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 UABQ4 10:51 4th & 2 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. vs UABQ2 6:48 4th & 1 at LT 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs MRSHQ3 12:29 4th & 1 at LT 16, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs MRSHQ3 3:09 4th & 2 at LT 43, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at UTSAQ2 9:22 4th & 4 at UTSA 4, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at UNTQ1 7:41 4th & 1 at LT 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at UNTQ4 1:53 4th & 3 at UNT 46, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs UTEPQ3 9:02 4th & 9 at UTEP 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

25th of 127 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

   USM
2. W

   HCU
3. L

   BYU
4. W

   UTEP
5. L

   MRSH
6. L

   UTSA
7. W

   UAB
8. W

   UNT
9. L

   TCU
10. L

    GASO

What moved it, 2020

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+1.47
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.37

Game by game

• USMW 31-30 at USM31% → 86%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• HCUW 66-38 vs HCU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• BYUL 14-45 at BYU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• UTEPW 21-17 vs UTEP86% → 91%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +2
• MRSHL 17-35 vs MRSH22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• UTSAL 26-27 at UTSA53% → 17%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −3
• UABW 37-34 vs UAB17% → 78%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −24
• UNTW 42-31 at UNT52% → 97%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• TCUL 10-52 at TCU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• GASOL 3-38 at GASO29% → 100%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +63, Clock +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.