Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1233rd
  Defense+0.2122nd
• 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.
  Offense41.2%35th
  Defense45.8%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3167th
  Defense+1.2652nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0318th
  Defense+0.2119th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2764th
  Defense+0.2435th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%16th
  Defense51.4%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.
  Offense33.2%70th
  Defense33.1%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9636th
  Defense3.2821st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%36th
  Defense17.6%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.6%43rd
  Defense14.3%19th

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, 2021

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
   MSST
2. W
   SELA
3. L
   SMU
4. W
   UNT
5. L
   NCSU
6. L
   UTEP
7. L
   UTSA
8. L
   ODU
9. L
   UAB
10. W
    CLT
11. L
    USM
12. L
    RICE

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

Players, 2021

1. Austin KendallQB240 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 82nd of 219 QBs
   1.18WAR0.64 to 1.71
2. Marcus Williams Jr.RB175 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 72nd of 387 RBs
   0.47WAR0.29 to 0.67
3. JD HeadQB87 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 153rd of 219 QBs
   0.37WAR0.20 to 0.54
4. Aaron AllenQB70 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 172nd of 219 QBs
   0.24WAR0.12 to 0.36
5. Smoke HarrisWR67 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 66th of 474 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.28
6. Greg GarnerRB36 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 275th of 387 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
7. Tre HarrisWR44 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 195th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
8. Cesar BarajasPK46 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 39th of 128 kickers
   0.09WAR−0.03 to 0.20

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52052076th of 130Roster talent: 520, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714786th of 130Recruiting: 147, 86th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%72nd of 128Returning production: 70%, 72nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.6−11.6108th of 130SP+ rating: −11.6, 108th 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, 2021

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.23 of the 0.30 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 MSSTQ4 1:00 4th & 11 at MSST 43, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.7 pts
2. at RICEQ4 1:19 4th & 1 at LT 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
3. at UABQ4 10:27 4th & 3 at UAB 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. at MSSTQ3 3:06 4th & 2 at MSST 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
5. at NCSUQ3 11:27 4th & 1 at LT 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. at MSSTQ3 6:56 4th & 4 at MSST 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at RICEQ4 6:38 4th & 8 at RICE 35, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. at RICEQ2 5:13 4th & 12 at RICE 26, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

120th 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

   MSST
2. W

   SELA
3. L

   SMU
4. W

   UNT
5. L

   NCSU
6. L

   UTEP
7. L

   UTSA
8. L

   ODU
9. L

   UAB
10. W

    CLT
11. L

    USM
12. L

    RICE

What moved it, 2021

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−1.95
• Possession & field position+0.09
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.22

Game by game

• MSSTL 34-35 at MSST8% → 24%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +16: Scoreboard −7, Clock −1
• SELAW 45-42 vs SELA78% → 83%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +12, Possession & field position +3
• SMUL 37-39 vs SMU21% → 4%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• UNTW 24-17 vs UNT74% → 93%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +2
• NCSUL 27-34 at NCSU10% → 11%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position +1
• UTEPL 3-19 at UTEP63% → 1%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −1
• UTSAL 16-45 vs UTSA29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position +1
• ODUL 20-23 at ODU58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3
• UABL 38-52 at UAB18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• CLTW 42-32 vs CLT66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• USML 19-35 vs USM86% → 11%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −51, Possession & field position +3
• RICEL 31-35 at RICE61% → 29%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position +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.