Louisville

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+0.2994th
  Defense−0.0391st
• 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.
  Offense49.5%94th
  Defense36.4%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2983rd
  Defense+1.2720th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3399th
  Defense−0.1398th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2980th
  Defense+0.0780th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.7%96th
  Defense40.5%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.5%86th
  Defense29.4%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5299th
  Defense2.5483rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%72nd
  Defense24.6%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%37th
  Defense19.0%82nd

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 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. W
   CLT
2. W
   SYR
3. W
   FSU
4. W
   MRSH
5. L
   CLEM
6. W
   DUKE
7. W
   NCSU
8. W
   UVA
9. W
   BC
10. W
    WAKE
11. L
    HOU
12. L
    UK
13. L
    LSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2016

1. Lamar JacksonQB488 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 6th of 218 QBs
   2.72WAR2.05 to 3.51
2. Brandon RadcliffRB108 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 138th of 347 RBs
   0.27WAR0.12 to 0.39
3. James QuickWR51 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 149th of 417 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
4. Jeremy SmithRB43 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 240th of 347 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
5. Jamari StaplesWR56 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 237th of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.16
6. Blanton CrequePK13 plays · +0.379 pts/play · 61st of 116 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Cole HikutiniTE48 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 4th of 195 TEs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.17
8. Jaylen SmithWR25 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 339th of 417 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 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 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65465432nd of 128Roster talent: 654, 32nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419440th of 128Recruiting: 194, 40th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  100%100%5th of 128Returning production: 100%, 5th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.9+22.99th of 128SP+ rating: +22.9, 9th 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 Louisville'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 0.04 of the 0.08 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 UVAQ2 0:01 4th & 20 at LOU 29, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.8 pts
2. at UVAQ3 13:12 4th & 1 at LOU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs LSUQ3 12:47 4th & 1 at LOU 22, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at SYRQ3 4:12 4th & 3 at SYR 11, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs UKQ2 8:13 4th & 2 at UK 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs LSUQ4 6:54 4th & 5 at LSU 5, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at CLEMQ4 6:11 4th & 3 at LOU 36, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at HOUQ2 0:41 4th & 17 at HOU 38, down 31Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

110th 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. W

   CLT
2. W

   SYR
3. W

   FSU
4. W

   MRSH
5. L

   CLEM
6. W

   DUKE
7. W

   NCSU
8. W

   UVA
9. W

   BC
10. W

    WAKE
11. L

    HOU
12. L

    UK
13. L

    LSU

What moved it, 2016

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−0.30
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.06

Game by game

• CLTW 70-14 vs CLT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SYRW 62-28 at SYR80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26
• FSUW 63-20 vs FSU39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +54
• MRSHW 59-28 at MRSH94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• CLEML 36-42 at CLEM38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• DUKEW 24-14 vs DUKE96% → 97%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +9
• NCSUW 54-13 vs NCSU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• UVAW 32-25 at UVA96% → 89%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• BCW 52-7 at BC94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• WAKEW 44-12 vs WAKE98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• HOUL 10-36 at HOU87% → 0%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −62, Timeouts −1
• UKL 38-41 vs UK95% → 17%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position −2
• LSUL 9-29 vs LSU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −44, Clock −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.