Louisville

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+0.1048th
  Defense+0.0376th
• 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.
  Offense43.0%43rd
  Defense38.9%79th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2987th
  Defense+1.2235th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1481st
  Defense−0.0790th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0728th
  Defense+0.1354th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.2%34th
  Defense43.4%76th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.7%68th
  Defense31.0%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9057th
  Defense2.5781st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.3%17th
  Defense21.0%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.6%19th
  Defense2.8%87th

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 Louisville 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
   AUB
2. L
   HOU
3. L
   CLEM
4. W
   SAM
5. W
   NCSU
6. L
   FSU
7. W
   BC
8. W
   WAKE
9. W
   SYR
10. W
    UVA
11. L
    PITT
12. W
    UK
13. W
    TA&M

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2015

1. Lamar JacksonQB335 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 38th of 205 QBs
   1.82WAR1.21 to 2.42
2. Kyle BolinQB148 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 113th of 205 QBs
   0.67WAR0.43 to 0.93
3. Brandon RadcliffRB123 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 89th of 333 RBs
   0.28WAR0.16 to 0.38
4. Joshua ApplebyPK67 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 31st of 115 kickers
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.29
5. John WallaceP17 plays · +0.371 pts/play · 32nd of 92 punters
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Jeremy SmithRB68 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 187th of 333 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Reggie BonnafonRB41 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 195th of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. James QuickWR57 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 213th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18

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 Louisville'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.
  64164136th of 128Roster talent: 641, 36th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19319341st of 128Recruiting: 193, 41st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%67th of 127Returning production: 60%, 67th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.2+13.226th of 128SP+ rating: +13.2, 26th 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 Louisville'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 0.18 of the 0.28 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 WAKEQ4 1:42 4th & 1 at LOU 48, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−10.2 pts
2. vs TA&MQ2 9:46 4th & 1 at LOU 16, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs CLEMQ2 11:05 4th & 1 at LOU 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs BCQ2 2:51 4th & 1 at BC 17, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at WAKEQ3 10:40 4th & 3 at WAKE 46, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at WAKEQ2 5:05 4th & 3 at WAKE 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs CLEMQ2 4:46 4th & 7 at CLEM 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs BCQ2 12:23 4th & 1 at LOU 17, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

48th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   AUB
2. L

   HOU
3. L

   CLEM
4. W

   SAM
5. W

   NCSU
6. L

   FSU
7. W

   BC
8. W

   WAKE
9. W

   SYR
10. W

    UVA
11. L

    PITT
12. W

    UK
13. W

    TA&M

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Louisville'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+0.77
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.16

Game by game

• AUBL 24-31 at AUB25% → 4%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• HOUL 31-34 vs HOU80% → 7%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• CLEML 17-20 vs CLEM30% → 15%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −33, Clock −3
• SAMW 45-3 vs SAM97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• NCSUW 20-13 at NCSU32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• FSUL 21-41 at FSU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28
• BCW 17-14 vs BC76% → 91%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• WAKEW 20-19 at WAKE76% → 95%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• SYRW 41-17 vs SYR80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24
• UVAW 38-31 vs UVA75% → 97%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• PITTL 34-45 at PITT45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• UKW 38-24 at UK59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• TA&MW 27-21 vs TA&M40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from Louisville's side.

Closest call

LOU 31-27 BC (2024) - Louisville dropped to a 11.5% win probability before pulling it out.