Louisville

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2689th
  Defense+0.2026th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%57th
  Defense42.4%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4697th
  Defense+1.3616th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1973rd
  Defense+0.2216th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3584th
  Defense+0.1863rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%44th
  Defense48.4%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%85th
  Defense30.2%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2776th
  Defense3.2722nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%42nd
  Defense16.7%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%82nd
  Defense16.5%47th

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, 2021

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
   MISS
2. W
   EKU
3. W
   UCF
4. W
   FSU
5. L
   WAKE
6. L
   UVA
7. W
   BC
8. L
   NCSU
9. L
   CLEM
10. W
    SYR
11. W
    DUKE
12. L
    UK
13. L
    AF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2021

1. Malik CunninghamQB412 plays · +0.341 pts/play · 10th of 219 QBs
   2.63WAR1.88 to 3.38
2. Jalen MitchellRB123 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 93rd of 387 RBs
   0.42WAR0.29 to 0.54
3. Trey CooleyRB85 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 156th of 387 RBs
   0.29WAR0.24 to 0.35
4. Mark VassettP39 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 46th of 101 punters
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
5. Jordan WatkinsWR38 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 206th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. James TurnerPK19 plays · +0.298 pts/play · 25th of 128 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. Hassan HallRB36 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 296th of 387 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. Justin MarshallWR28 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 282nd of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60860858th of 130Roster talent: 608, 58th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19319347th of 130Recruiting: 193, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%67th of 128Returning production: 73%, 67th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.8+7.852nd of 130SP+ rating: +7.8, 52nd 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, 2021

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 0.10 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 FSUQ3 4:17 4th & 2 at LOU 47, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at WAKEQ2 6:38 4th & 3 at WAKE 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at WAKEQ3 1:07 4th & 3 at LOU 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs UCFQ4 3:40 4th & 3 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at FSUQ4 1:51 4th & 2 at LOU 47, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at NCSUQ2 9:38 4th & 1 at LOU 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at FSUQ4 13:28 4th & 2 at LOU 37, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs UVAQ3 1:29 4th & 3 at UVA 20, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

94th 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

   MISS
2. W

   EKU
3. W

   UCF
4. W

   FSU
5. L

   WAKE
6. L

   UVA
7. W

   BC
8. L

   NCSU
9. L

   CLEM
10. W

    SYR
11. W

    DUKE
12. L

    UK
13. L

    AF

What moved it, 2021

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−0.07
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.51

Game by game

• MISSL 24-43 at MISS26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28
• EKUW 30-3 vs EKU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• UCFW 42-35 vs UCF34% → 86%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −1
• FSUW 31-23 at FSU47% → 96%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• WAKEL 34-37 at WAKE32% → 92%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• UVAL 33-34 vs UVA54% → 37%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position +4
• BCW 28-14 vs BC60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +1
• NCSUL 13-28 at NCSU34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −1
• CLEML 24-30 vs CLEM43% → 16%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −40, Clock −3
• SYRW 41-3 vs SYR59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +40
• DUKEW 62-22 at DUKE91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• UKL 21-52 vs UK63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• AFL 28-31 vs AF51% → 6%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3

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.