Louisville

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+0.2898th
  Defense+0.1143rd
• 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.
  Offense50.1%98th
  Defense45.9%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2984th
  Defense+1.1758th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3199th
  Defense+0.0940th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2880th
  Defense+0.1647th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.9%95th
  Defense52.1%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.9%99th
  Defense31.2%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6299th
  Defense2.8650th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%91st
  Defense17.4%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%73rd
  Defense17.9%69th

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 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
   PUR
2. W
   UNC
3. L
   CLEM
4. W
   KENT
5. W
   MUR
6. L
   NCSU
7. L
   BC
8. W
   FSU
9. L
   WAKE
10. W
    UVA
11. W
    SYR
12. W
    UK
13. L
    MSST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2017

1. Lamar JacksonQB518 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 1st of 226 QBs
   2.95WAR2.14 to 3.76
2. Reggie BonnafonRB97 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 170th of 352 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.26
3. Jaylen SmithWR91 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 57th of 426 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.26
4. Dez FitzpatrickWR53 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 71st of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
5. Blanton CrequePK15 plays · +0.484 pts/play · 30th of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Seth DawkinsWR41 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 153rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Traveon SamuelWR23 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 373rd of 426 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Mason KingP39 plays · +0.027 pts/play · 63rd of 95 punters
   0.02WAR−0.05 to 0.09

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64164136th of 130Roster talent: 641, 36th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719738th of 130Recruiting: 197, 38th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%50th of 128Returning production: 67%, 50th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.2+19.214th of 128SP+ rating: +19.2, 14th 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 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 0.07 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 PURQ4 14:04 4th & 1 at LOU 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at FSUQ4 11:16 4th & 1 at LOU 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. at MSSTQ4 7:38 4th & 4 at MSST 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at UNCQ2 11:52 4th & 2 at UNC 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at NCSUQ4 0:36 4th & 16 at NCSU 19, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at MSSTQ3 5:59 4th & 4 at MSST 49, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at PURQ4 1:14 4th & 1 at LOU 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs SYRQ2 9:47 4th & 1 at LOU 21, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

119th of 130 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

   PUR
2. W

   UNC
3. L

   CLEM
4. W

   KENT
5. W

   MUR
6. L

   NCSU
7. L

   BC
8. W

   FSU
9. L

   WAKE
10. W

    UVA
11. W

    SYR
12. W

    UK
13. L

    MSST

What moved it, 2017

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−0.59
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.07

Game by game

• PURW 35-28 at PUR94% → 96%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• UNCW 47-35 at UNC82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• CLEML 21-47 vs CLEM45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• KENTW 42-3 vs KENT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MURW 55-10 vs MUR100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• NCSUL 25-39 at NCSU60% → 2%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2
• BCL 42-45 vs BC92% → 4%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• FSUW 31-28 at FSU30% → 87%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4
• WAKEL 32-42 at WAKE55% → 3%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −1
• UVAW 38-21 vs UVA84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• SYRW 56-10 vs SYR84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +18
• UKW 44-17 at UK75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• MSSTL 27-31 at MSST65% → 9%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −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.