Louisiana Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1045th
  Defense+0.0181st
• 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.
  Offense39.9%26th
  Defense37.9%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2556th
  Defense+1.3315th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1264th
  Defense+0.0170th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1233rd
  Defense+0.0779th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%33rd
  Defense41.9%88th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.9%16th
  Defense30.5%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9552nd
  Defense2.6979th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%64th
  Defense23.3%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%58th
  Defense19.5%93rd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   SELA
2. L
   LSU
3. W
   NMSU
4. W
   USM
5. W
   UTEP
6. L
   KENN
7. L
   WKU
8. W
   SHSU
9. L
   DEL
10. L
    WSU
11. W
    LIB
12. W
    MOST
13. W
    CCU

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

Players, 2025

1. Trey KukukQB138 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 113th of 231 QBs
   0.68WAR0.34 to 1.02
2. Blake BakerQB188 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 119th of 231 QBs
   0.63WAR0.30 to 0.97
3. Clay TheveninRB126 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 63rd of 365 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.34
4. Omiri WigginsRB88 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 156th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
5. Andrew BurnetteRB66 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 206th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
6. John Hoyet ChanceP42 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 13th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
7. Eli FinleyTE34 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 49th of 213 TEs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.15
8. Marlion JacksonWR33 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 292nd of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.01 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  494494116th of 134Roster talent: 494, 116th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14414489th of 134Recruiting: 144, 89th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%49th of 132Returning production: 43%, 49th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.3−1.376th of 134SP+ rating: −1.3, 76th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.11 of the 0.16 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 LIBQ4 3:52 4th & 1 at LT 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−8.0 pts
2. vs CCUQ4 2:13 4th & 1 at LT 21, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at DELQ3 7:03 4th & 6 at DEL 40, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at UTEPQ3 5:47 4th & 3 at UTEP 19, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs WKUQ2 6:12 4th & 3 at WKU 25, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs LIBQ2 7:12 4th & 2 at LT 43, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at LSUQ4 0:36 4th & 6 at LT 29, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at LSUQ4 0:36 4th & 6 at LT 29, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

60th of 136 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

   SELA
2. L

   LSU
3. W

   NMSU
4. W

   USM
5. W

   UTEP
6. L

   KENN
7. L

   WKU
8. W

   SHSU
9. L

   DEL
10. L

    WSU
11. W

    LIB
12. W

    MOST
13. W

    CCU

What moved it, 2025

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+1.63
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.34
• Timeouts−0.39
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.35

Game by game

• SELAW 24-0 vs SELA85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +20
• LSUL 7-23 at LSU1% → 1%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −5
• NMSUW 49-14 vs NMSU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• USMW 30-20 vs USM62% → 98%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −2
• UTEPW 30-11 at UTEP54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +3
• KENNL 7-35 at KENN68% → 0%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −59, Possession & field position +1
• WKUL 27-28 vs WKU66% → 12%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −20
• SHSUW 55-14 vs SHSU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• DELL 24-25 at DEL68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• WSUL 3-28 at WSU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +1
• LIBW 34-28 vs LIB48% → 85%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −22
• MOSTW 42-30 at MOST47% → 98%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• CCUW 23-14 vs CCU76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +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.