Louisville

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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−0.029th
  Defense+0.284th
• 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.
  Offense40.8%26th
  Defense52.1%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1013th
  Defense+1.1573rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0217th
  Defense+0.255th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0110th
  Defense+0.357th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%43rd
  Defense57.6%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.0%9th
  Defense37.1%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6721st
  Defense3.305th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.6%18th
  Defense14.8%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.3%10th
  Defense8.8%1st

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, 2018

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
   ALA
2. W
   INST
3. W
   WKU
4. L
   UVA
5. L
   FSU
6. L
   GT
7. L
   BC
8. L
   WAKE
9. L
   CLEM
10. L
    SYR
11. L
    NCSU
12. L
    UK

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2018

1. Jawon PassQB210 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 136th of 225 QBs
   0.54WAR0.20 to 0.86
2. Malik CunninghamQB103 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 140th of 225 QBs
   0.49WAR0.25 to 0.75
3. Dez FitzpatrickWR36 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 226th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
4. Mason KingP40 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 46th of 91 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
5. Blanton CrequePK9 plays · +0.402 pts/play · 91st of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
6. Seth DawkinsWR18 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 305th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
7. Jaylen SmithWR34 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 341st of 434 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09
8. Micky CrumTE26 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.06

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63263240th of 130Roster talent: 632, 40th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20420433rd of 130Recruiting: 204, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%105th of 129Returning production: 37%, 105th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.1−9.198th of 130SP+ rating: −9.1, 98th of 130 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, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 UVAQ3 9:45 4th & 3 at UVA 3, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs UKQ2 4:08 4th & 1 at LOU 34, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs FSUQ2 4:19 4th & 4 at FSU 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs GTQ1 5:09 4th & 1 at LOU 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at BCQ4 15:00 4th & 18 at BC 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs WAKEQ1 6:16 4th & 1 at LOU 31, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs WAKEQ2 9:20 4th & 11 at WAKE 35, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs FSUQ3 10:30 4th & 10 at FSU 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

123rd 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. L

   ALA
2. W

   INST
3. W

   WKU
4. L

   UVA
5. L

   FSU
6. L

   GT
7. L

   BC
8. L

   WAKE
9. L

   CLEM
10. L

    SYR
11. L

    NCSU
12. L

    UK

What moved it, 2018

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−2.10
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• ALAL 14-51 at ALA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• INSTW 31-7 vs INST77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• WKUW 20-17 vs WKU93% → 80%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −13: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position −2
• UVAL 3-27 at UVA35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• FSUL 24-28 vs FSU28% → 5%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• GTL 31-66 vs GT31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• BCL 20-38 at BC19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• WAKEL 35-56 vs WAKE57% → 0%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• CLEML 16-77 at CLEM1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• SYRL 23-54 at SYR9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• NCSUL 10-52 vs NCSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18
• UKL 10-56 vs UK14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19

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.