Louisiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1049th
  Defense+0.255th
• 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.
  Offense42.8%47th
  Defense49.8%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2984th
  Defense+1.2244th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1479th
  Defense+0.218th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0831st
  Defense+0.3112th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%40th
  Defense54.3%3rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%71st
  Defense37.5%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0071st
  Defense3.0035th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%38th
  Defense16.7%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%45th
  Defense13.7%14th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. W
   SELA
2. L
   TLSA
3. L
   TA&M
4. L
   ULM
5. W
   IDHO
6. W
   TXST
7. L
   ARST
8. W
   USA
9. L
   MISS
10. W
    NMSU
11. L
    GASO
12. L
    APP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisiana.

Players, 2017

1. Jordan DavisQB195 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 114th of 226 QBs
   0.54WAR0.17 to 0.91
2. Trey RagasRB116 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 65th of 352 RBs
   0.38WAR0.29 to 0.48
3. Andre NunezQB85 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 165th of 226 QBs
   0.26WAR0.14 to 0.40
4. Levi LewisQB51 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 187th of 226 QBs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.24
5. Ryheem MaloneWR45 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 114th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Stevie ArtiguePK12 plays · +0.511 pts/play · 49th of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Darius HogginsRB32 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 248th of 352 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
8. Keenan BarnesWR34 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 282nd of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  329329112th of 130Roster talent: 329, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  117117103rd of 130Recruiting: 117, 103rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%123rd of 128Returning production: 22%, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.8−15.8115th of 128SP+ rating: −15.8, 115th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.10 of the 0.15 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 USAQ3 8:03 4th & 1 at UL 47, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at USAQ2 3:10 4th & 3 at USA 3, up 16Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs ULMQ3 5:16 4th & 3 at ULM 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at IDHOQ3 6:23 4th & 4 at IDHO 43, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs ULMQ4 15:00 4th & 7 at ULM 22, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
6. vs NMSUQ3 7:05 4th & 3 at NMSU 11, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs NMSUQ2 11:00 4th & 2 at NMSU 18, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs TXSTQ3 0:05 4th & 3 at TXST 10, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

42nd of 130 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   SELA
2. L

   TLSA
3. L

   TA&M
4. L

   ULM
5. W

   IDHO
6. W

   TXST
7. L

   ARST
8. W

   USA
9. L

   MISS
10. W

    NMSU
11. L

    GASO
12. L

    APP

What moved it, 2017

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+0.07
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.49

Game by game

• TLSAL 42-66 at TLSA17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• TA&ML 21-45 at TA&M5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• ULML 50-56 vs ULM52% → 10%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −18
• IDHOW 21-16 at IDHO27% → 93%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• TXSTW 24-7 vs TXST79% → 98%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• ARSTL 3-47 at ARST16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• USAW 19-14 at USA29% → 95%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• MISSL 22-50 at MISS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• NMSUW 47-34 vs NMSU32% → 99%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +2
• GASOL 24-34 vs GASO63% → 5%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −55, Clock −1
• APPL 14-63 at APP14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17

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.