Louisiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1975th
  Defense+0.0479th
• 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.
  Offense46.9%80th
  Defense42.7%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2233rd
  Defense+1.1194th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1885th
  Defense+0.1331st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2260th
  Defense−0.0997th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%77th
  Defense48.9%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.3%77th
  Defense27.1%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3894th
  Defense3.3012th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.2%90th
  Defense12.7%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%88th
  Defense14.4%26th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   ISU
2. W
   GAST
3. W
   GASO
4. L
   CCU
5. W
   UAB
6. W
   TXST
7. W
   ARST
8. W
   USA
9. W
   ULM
10. W
    APP
11. W
    UTSA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisiana.

Players, 2020

1. Levi LewisQB319 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 20th of 212 QBs
   1.04WAR0.51 to 1.59
2. Elijah MitchellRB147 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 10th of 338 RBs
   0.64WAR0.51 to 0.76
3. Trey RagasRB133 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 30th of 338 RBs
   0.49WAR0.37 to 0.62
4. Chris SmithRB65 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 171st of 338 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.24
5. Kyren LacyWR36 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 138th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Peter LeBlancWR36 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 185th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. Jalen WilliamsWR28 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Rhys ByrnsP31 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 14th of 77 punters
   0.06WAR0.01 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'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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  379379102nd of 127Roster talent: 379, 102nd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13713795th of 127Recruiting: 137, 95th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%48th of 127Returning production: 73%, 48th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.1+8.134th of 127SP+ rating: +8.1, 34th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.06 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 CCUQ2 4:42 4th & 1 at UL 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at APPQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at APP 9, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. vs ARSTQ4 8:21 4th & 4 at ARST 18, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at UABQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at UAB 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at UTSAQ1 4:33 4th & 12 at UTSA 14, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs CCUQ2 11:32 4th & 6 at CCU 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at UABQ2 13:27 4th & 4 at UAB 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at GASTQ1 3:30 4th & 3 at UL 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

7th of 127 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. W

   ISU
2. W

   GAST
3. W

   GASO
4. L

   CCU
5. W

   UAB
6. W

   TXST
7. W

   ARST
8. W

   USA
9. W

   ULM
10. W

    APP
11. W

    UTSA

What moved it, 2020

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+2.59
• Timeouts+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.92

Game by game

• ISUW 31-14 at ISU18% → 98%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• GASTW 34-31 at GAST88% → 88%Before kickoff +38 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +10
• GASOW 20-18 vs GASO79% → 95%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• CCUL 27-30 vs CCU74% → 13%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4
• UABW 24-20 at UAB55% → 95%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• TXSTW 44-34 at TXST87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• ARSTW 27-20 vs ARST84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +21
• USAW 38-10 vs USA84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• ULMW 70-20 at ULM97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• APPW 24-21 at APP43% → 94%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• UTSAW 31-24 at UTSA82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2

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.