Louisiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0215th
  Defense+0.0477th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%35th
  Defense42.2%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.079th
  Defense+1.1568th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0439th
  Defense−0.1399th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0013th
  Defense+0.2229th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.4%35th
  Defense45.4%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%41st
  Defense35.8%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0562nd
  Defense2.2298th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%47th
  Defense21.5%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%34th
  Defense15.8%44th

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, 2016

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
   BOIS
2. W
   MCN
3. W
   USA
4. L
   TULN
5. L
   NMSU
6. L
   APP
7. W
   TXST
8. L
   IDHO
9. W
   GASO
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    ARST
12. W
    ULM
13. L
    USM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisiana.

Players, 2016

1. Anthony JenningsQB320 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 103rd of 218 QBs
   0.78WAR0.26 to 1.36
2. Elijah McGuireRB199 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 24th of 347 RBs
   0.68WAR0.50 to 0.87
3. Steven CouttsP48 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 25th of 82 punters
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.27
4. Al RilesWR59 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 135th of 417 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
5. Jalen NixonQB25 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 191st of 218 QBs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Stevie ArtiguePK15 plays · +0.311 pts/play · 67th of 116 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Keenan BarnesWR32 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 271st of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
8. Dion RayWR25 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 364th of 417 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  42142188th of 128Roster talent: 421, 88th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12212293rd of 128Recruiting: 122, 93rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%79th of 128Returning production: 60%, 79th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.7−8.799th of 128SP+ rating: −8.7, 99th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.14 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 TULNQ4 2:26 4th & 5 at UL 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
2. at TULNQ3 3:18 4th & 3 at TULN 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
3. vs MCNQ4 5:01 4th & 1 at MCN 1, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
4. at TULNQ4 4:57 4th & 2 at UL 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
5. vs USAQ2 8:10 4th & 3 at USA 45, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
6. at GASOQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at UL 34, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs ARSTQ4 3:00 4th & 6 at ARST 48, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
8. at UGAQ2 8:37 4th & 13 at UGA 28, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

67th 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

   BOIS
2. W

   MCN
3. W

   USA
4. L

   TULN
5. L

   NMSU
6. L

   APP
7. W

   TXST
8. L

   IDHO
9. W

   GASO
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    ARST
12. W

    ULM
13. L

    USM

What moved it, 2016

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−0.01
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.20
• Timeouts+0.47
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.09

Game by game

• BOISL 10-45 vs BOIS11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16
• MCNW 30-22 vs MCN65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• USAW 28-23 vs USA57% → 96%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• TULNL 39-41 at TULN42% → 26%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −16: Timeouts +19, Scoreboard −19
• NMSUL 31-37 at NMSU72% → 17%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts +26
• APPL 0-24 vs APP24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• TXSTW 27-3 at TXST79% → 99%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• IDHOL 13-23 vs IDHO71% → 3%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• GASOW 33-26 at GASO20% → 96%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• UGAL 21-35 at UGA6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −11
• ARSTW 24-19 vs ARST37% → 95%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position −1
• ULMW 30-3 at ULM72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• USML 21-28 vs USM43% → 5%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −45, 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.