Louisiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1047th
  Defense+0.1815th
• 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.
  Offense43.3%48th
  Defense40.9%62nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1220th
  Defense+1.395th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1272nd
  Defense+0.0835th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0730th
  Defense+0.329th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%65th
  Defense43.3%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%37th
  Defense36.4%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1586th
  Defense2.9140th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.6%94th
  Defense23.0%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%34th
  Defense1.4%12th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 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
   UK
2. W
   NWST
3. L
   AKR
4. L
   LT
5. W
   TXST
6. L
   ARST
7. W
   ULM
8. W
   GAST
9. L
   USA
10. L
    NMSU
11. L
    APP
12. L
    TROY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisiana.

Players, 2015

1. Brooks HaackQB207 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 103rd of 205 QBs
   0.84WAR0.55 to 1.15
2. Jalen NixonQB137 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 120th of 205 QBs
   0.65WAR0.40 to 0.90
3. Elijah McGuireRB186 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 12th of 333 RBs
   0.58WAR0.45 to 0.75
4. Jamal RobinsonWR72 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 45th of 411 WRs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.35
5. Torrey PierceRB65 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 190th of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Al RilesWR64 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 201st of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.18
7. Steven CouttsP50 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 44th of 92 punters
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Stevie ArtiguePK14 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 86th of 115 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 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'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43043079th of 128Roster talent: 430, 79th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12412487th of 128Recruiting: 124, 87th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%71st of 127Returning production: 56%, 71st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.1−7.194th of 128SP+ rating: −7.1, 94th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.20 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 GASTQ4 0:11 4th & 6 at GAST 35, up 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−13.3 pts
2. vs NWSTQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at UL 15, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at GASTQ2 5:51 4th & 4 at GAST 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs ULMQ3 3:58 4th & 2 at UL 28, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at LTQ2 3:47 4th & 2 at UL 45, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs NMSUQ1 2:00 4th & 1 at UL 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at USAQ1 2:43 4th & 4 at USA 45, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ARSTQ4 2:44 4th & 10 at UL 28, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

117th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Louisiana's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   UK
2. W

   NWST
3. L

   AKR
4. L

   LT
5. W

   TXST
6. L

   ARST
7. W

   ULM
8. W

   GAST
9. L

   USA
10. L

    NMSU
11. L

    APP
12. L

    TROY

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Louisiana'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−1.54
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.47

Game by game

• UKL 33-40 at UK11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• NWSTW 44-17 vs NWST74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• AKRL 14-35 vs AKR72% → 1%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −63, Clock −2
• LTL 14-43 at LT18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20
• TXSTW 49-27 vs TXST58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +41
• ARSTL 27-37 at ARST30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −32
• ULMW 30-24 vs ULM76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• GASTW 23-21 at GAST64% → 85%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +35, Clock +3
• USAL 25-32 at USA56% → 3%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3
• NMSUL 34-37 vs NMSU84% → 10%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• APPL 7-28 at APP7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• TROYL 17-41 vs TROY53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Louisiana's side.

Closest call

MRSH 51-54 UL (2025) - Louisiana dropped to a 4.5% win probability before pulling it out.