Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0629th
  Defense+0.1917th
• 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.
  Offense42.3%53rd
  Defense42.6%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2547th
  Defense+1.399th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0117th
  Defense+0.216th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2041st
  Defense+0.2154th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.4%77th
  Defense48.0%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.2%15th
  Defense31.1%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.737th
  Defense3.1732nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%17th
  Defense16.2%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%27th
  Defense15.3%29th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   FIU
2. L
   SMU
3. W
   NWST
4. L
   UNT
5. L
   NEB
6. W
   UTEP
7. L
   WKU
8. L
   MTSU
9. L
   NMSU
10. L
    LIB
11. L
    SHSU
12. L
    JXST

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

Players, 2023

1. Hank BachmeierQB228 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 131st of 250 QBs
   0.46WAR−0.09 to 0.93
2. Jack TurnerQB138 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 133rd of 250 QBs
   0.46WAR0.15 to 0.76
3. Cyrus AllenWR44 plays · +0.338 pts/play · 27th of 457 WRs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.38
4. Tyre SheltonRB84 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 135th of 383 RBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.27
5. Blake OchsendorfP40 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 21st of 103 punters
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Charvis ThorntonRB44 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 232nd of 383 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Jacob BarnesPK12 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 87th of 113 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
8. Kyle MaxwellWR14 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 286th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  434434105th of 130Roster talent: 434, 105th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14414487th of 130Recruiting: 144, 87th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%91st of 128Returning production: 39%, 91st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.9−12.9110th of 130SP+ rating: −12.9, 110th 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, 2023

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.04 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 WKUQ4 6:28 4th & 4 at WKU 7, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
2. at UTEPQ2 2:28 4th & 2 at UTEP 15, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs NWSTQ1 1:40 4th & 1 at LT 20, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at MTSUQ4 2:30 4th & 10 at MTSU 10, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at MTSUQ2 14:25 4th & 2 at LT 30, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs NWSTQ2 13:05 4th & 2 at LT 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at JXSTQ1 8:44 4th & 3 at LT 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. at SMUQ1 4:28 4th & 6 at SMU 33, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

133rd of 133 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

   FIU
2. L

   SMU
3. W

   NWST
4. L

   UNT
5. L

   NEB
6. W

   UTEP
7. L

   WKU
8. L

   MTSU
9. L

   NMSU
10. L

    LIB
11. L

    SHSU
12. L

    JXST

What moved it, 2023

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−2.42
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.03

Game by game

• FIUW 22-17 vs FIU73% → 95%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +28
• SMUL 14-38 at SMU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• NWSTW 51-21 vs NWST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• UNTL 37-40 vs UNT65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• NEBL 14-28 at NEB9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• UTEPW 24-10 at UTEP54% → 96%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• WKUL 28-35 vs WKU37% → 4%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• MTSUL 23-31 at MTSU45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• NMSUL 24-27 vs NMSU55% → 6%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• LIBL 30-56 at LIB17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• SHSUL 27-42 vs SHSU72% → 2%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• JXSTL 17-56 at JXST34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35

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.