Louisiana

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0320th
  Defense+0.0770th
• 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.
  Offense40.1%30th
  Defense40.5%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2031st
  Defense+1.2645th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0017th
  Defense+0.1226th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1631st
  Defense+0.1567th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.4%22nd
  Defense44.0%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.7%45th
  Defense32.5%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0951st
  Defense3.1339th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.1%32nd
  Defense15.4%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%44th
  Defense16.1%50th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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. W
   EMU
3. L
   RICE
4. L
   ULM
5. L
   USA
6. W
   MRSH
7. W
   ARST
8. L
   USM
9. L
   TROY
10. W
    GASO
11. L
    FSU
12. W
    TXST
13. L
    HOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisiana.

Players, 2022

1. Ben WooldridgeQB260 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 97th of 234 QBs
   0.79WAR0.20 to 1.31
2. Chandler FieldsQB145 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 128th of 234 QBs
   0.46WAR0.19 to 0.76
3. Michael JeffersonWR54 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 32nd of 455 WRs
   0.25WAR0.12 to 0.37
4. Chris SmithRB128 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 132nd of 384 RBs
   0.23WAR0.09 to 0.36
5. Terrence WilliamsLB80 plays · +0.120 pts/play
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
6. Kenneth AlmendaresPK20 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 25th of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
7. Neal JohnsonTE23 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 52nd of 214 TEs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Rhys ByrnsP43 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 46th of 102 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  45845892nd of 129Roster talent: 458, 92nd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14714786th of 129Recruiting: 147, 86th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%96th of 128Returning production: 36%, 96th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.0+2.063rd of 129SP+ rating: +2.0, 63rd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.22 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 HOUQ4 2:59 4th & 11 at HOU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−6.1 pts
2. at USMQ4 4:11 4th & 4 at USM 4, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.3 pts
3. at ULMQ4 11:46 4th & 10 at UL 31, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
4. at TXSTQ3 3:50 4th & 1 at UL 27, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at ULMQ2 7:25 4th & 1 at ULM 11, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at MRSHQ3 0:00 4th & 6 at MRSH 35, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at HOUQ2 9:35 4th & 3 at HOU 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs USAQ3 2:39 4th & 2 at UL 12, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

90th of 131 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

   SELA
2. W

   EMU
3. L

   RICE
4. L

   ULM
5. L

   USA
6. W

   MRSH
7. W

   ARST
8. L

   USM
9. L

   TROY
10. W

    GASO
11. L

    FSU
12. W

    TXST
13. L

    HOU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.04
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.20

Game by game

• SELAW 24-7 vs SELA84% → 98%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• EMUW 49-21 vs EMU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• RICEL 21-33 at RICE78% → 2%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −50, Possession & field position −1
• ULML 17-21 at ULM72% → 13%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• USAL 17-20 vs USA27% → 5%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• MRSHW 23-13 at MRSH20% → 96%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +55, Clock +4
• ARSTW 38-18 vs ARST66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +35, Clock −1
• USML 24-39 at USM48% → 4%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• TROYL 17-23 vs TROY40% → 13%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• GASOW 36-17 vs GASO57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +41
• FSUL 17-49 at FSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• TXSTW 41-13 at TXST64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• HOUL 16-23 at HOU28% → 4%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28

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.