Louisville

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2388th
  Defense+0.1629th
• 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.
  Offense43.5%50th
  Defense45.2%32nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4799th
  Defense+1.2627th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0957th
  Defense+0.1422nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4595th
  Defense+0.1945th
• 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%49th
  Defense51.0%21st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%66th
  Defense32.7%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7936th
  Defense3.269th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.7%5th
  Defense15.6%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense24.4%11th
  Defense22.2%78th

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, 2019

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
   ND
2. W
   EKU
3. W
   WKU
4. L
   FSU
5. W
   BC
6. W
   WAKE
7. L
   CLEM
8. W
   UVA
9. L
   MIA
10. W
    NCSU
11. W
    SYR
12. L
    UK
13. W
    MSST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2019

1. Micale CunninghamQB189 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 90th of 228 QBs
   0.88WAR0.48 to 1.24
2. Javian HawkinsRB211 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 31st of 349 RBs
   0.62WAR0.44 to 0.82
3. Malik CunninghamQB92 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 133rd of 228 QBs
   0.46WAR0.29 to 0.63
4. Tutu AtwellWR87 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 8th of 439 WRs
   0.37WAR0.23 to 0.52
5. Hassan HallRB83 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 161st of 349 RBs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.33
6. Evan ConleyQB61 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 169th of 228 QBs
   0.24WAR0.12 to 0.36
7. Mason KingP49 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 18th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.17
8. Dez FitzpatrickWR43 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 231st of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 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 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64664638th of 130Roster talent: 646, 38th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19519540th of 130Recruiting: 195, 40th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%17th of 130Returning production: 82%, 17th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.2+0.261st of 130SP+ rating: +0.2, 61st 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, 2019

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 0.03 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 WAKEQ2 2:06 4th & 1 at WAKE 14, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs UVAQ3 4:08 4th & 14 at UVA 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. at NCSUQ4 3:15 4th & 4 at NCSU 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at UKQ2 12:37 4th & 6 at LOU 33, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs BCQ2 14:10 4th & 2 at BC 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at NCSUQ4 9:42 4th & 7 at NCSU 7, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs UVAQ4 10:37 4th & 4 at LOU 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs MSSTQ2 5:17 4th & 11 at MSST 34, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

13th 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

   ND
2. W

   EKU
3. W

   WKU
4. L

   FSU
5. W

   BC
6. W

   WAKE
7. L

   CLEM
8. W

   UVA
9. L

   MIA
10. W

    NCSU
11. W

    SYR
12. L

    UK
13. W

    MSST

What moved it, 2019

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+1.40
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• NDL 17-35 vs ND10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• EKUW 42-0 vs EKU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• WKUW 38-21 at WKU76% → 98%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −2
• FSUL 24-35 at FSU33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• BCW 41-39 vs BC62% → 95%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• WAKEW 62-59 at WAKE31% → 88%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• CLEML 10-45 vs CLEM5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• UVAW 28-21 vs UVA40% → 91%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• MIAL 27-52 at MIA33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• NCSUW 34-20 at NCSU65% → 98%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• SYRW 56-34 vs SYR72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• UKL 13-45 at UK41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position −1
• MSSTW 38-28 vs MSST38% → 97%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +42, 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.