Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.045th
  Defense+0.0283rd
• 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.
  Offense37.5%11th
  Defense37.2%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1611th
  Defense+1.2264th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.132nd
  Defense+0.0368th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0619th
  Defense+0.0677th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%14th
  Defense41.7%93rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.5%12th
  Defense29.0%68th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.627th
  Defense2.9062nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%11th
  Defense19.5%69th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.6%39th
  Defense15.4%41st

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   NICH
2. L
   NCSU
3. L
   TLSA
4. L
   FIU
5. W
   MTSU
6. L
   NMSU
7. W
   UTEP
8. L
   SHSU
9. L
   JXST
10. W
    WKU
11. L
    ARK
12. W
    KENN
13. L
    ARMY

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

Players, 2024

1. Evan BullockQB307 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 105th of 232 QBs
   0.78WAR0.20 to 1.32
2. Tru EdwardsWR69 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 26th of 452 WRs
   0.23WAR0.05 to 0.40
3. Omiri WigginsRB116 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 133rd of 373 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.30
4. Jack TurnerQB74 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 179th of 232 QBs
   0.20WAR0.08 to 0.32
5. Jimmy HolidayWR74 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 99th of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22
6. Amani GivensRB59 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 216th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
7. Patrick ReaP55 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 23rd of 106 punters
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.23
8. Buck BuchananPK15 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 69th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  534534103rd of 131Roster talent: 534, 103rd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13813895th of 131Recruiting: 138, 95th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%105th of 130Returning production: 26%, 105th of 130 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 131SP+ rating: −11.6, 108th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.18 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 NCSUQ3 0:36 4th & 2 at NCSU 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs TLSAQ4 3:14 4th & 4 at TLSA 24, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
3. at FIUQ4 4:30 4th & 7 at FIU 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at WKUQ4 8:06 4th & 4 at WKU 7, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs KENNQ3 11:40 4th & 1 at LT 45, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs JXSTQ4 3:38 4th & 3 at JXST 47, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs JXSTQ3 10:04 4th & 2 at LT 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs UTEPQ4 2:38 4th & 8 at UTEP 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

86th of 134 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

   NICH
2. L

   NCSU
3. L

   TLSA
4. L

   FIU
5. W

   MTSU
6. L

   NMSU
7. W

   UTEP
8. L

   SHSU
9. L

   JXST
10. W

    WKU
11. L

    ARK
12. W

    KENN
13. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2024

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−0.37
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.22
• Timeouts−0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.15

Game by game

• NICHW 25-17 vs NICH71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• NCSUL 20-30 at NCSU9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −14
• TLSAL 20-23 vs TLSA49% → 12%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −19
• FIUL 10-17 at FIU52% → 2%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• MTSUW 48-21 vs MTSU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −1
• NMSUL 30-33 at NMSU84% → 15%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +23
• UTEPW 14-10 vs UTEP67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• SHSUL 3-9 at SHSU23% → 4%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• JXSTL 37-44 vs JXST26% → 23%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −17
• WKUW 12-7 at WKU21% → 96%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• ARKL 14-35 at ARK6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• KENNW 33-0 vs KENN80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts −1
• ARMYL 6-27 at ARMY17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1

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.