Louisville

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1869th
  Defense0.0091st
• 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.
  Offense48.8%94th
  Defense36.3%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1819th
  Defense+1.408th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1467th
  Defense−0.0789th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2552nd
  Defense+0.1186th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.2%90th
  Defense43.7%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.8%86th
  Defense23.4%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1252nd
  Defense2.4596th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%23rd
  Defense23.1%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.2%62nd
  Defense17.7%69th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   GT
2. W
   MUR
3. W
   IU
4. W
   BC
5. W
   NCSU
6. W
   ND
7. L
   PITT
8. W
   DUKE
9. W
   VT
10. W
    UVA
11. W
    MIA
12. L
    UK
13. L
    FSU
14. L
    USC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2023

1. Jack PlummerQB419 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 95th of 250 QBs
   0.91WAR0.17 to 1.66
2. Jawhar JordanRB173 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 19th of 383 RBs
   0.49WAR0.33 to 0.65
3. Jamari ThrashWR58 plays · +0.332 pts/play · 8th of 457 WRs
   0.36WAR0.21 to 0.51
4. Isaac GuerendoRB117 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 63rd of 383 RBs
   0.32WAR0.21 to 0.44
5. Maurice TurnerRB49 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 219th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
6. Chris BellWR35 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 175th of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.19
7. Nate KuriskyTE18 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 83rd of 212 TEs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
8. Brock TravelsteadPK17 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 81st of 113 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74474429th of 130Roster talent: 744, 29th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020037th of 130Recruiting: 200, 37th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  23%23%114th of 128Returning production: 23%, 114th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.0+8.033rd of 130SP+ rating: +8.0, 33rd 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, 2023

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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. vs NDQ3 8:24 4th & 1 at ND 27, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at FSUQ3 7:02 4th & 1 at FSU 19, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. at IUQ4 8:34 4th & 5 at IU 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at PITTQ4 7:56 4th & 3 at PITT 29, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at MIAQ3 11:28 4th & 2 at MIA 22, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs DUKEQ3 7:32 4th & 3 at DUKE 3, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at USCQ4 4:48 4th & 6 at USC 16, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at FSUQ2 7:43 4th & 3 at FSU 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

32nd of 133 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

   GT
2. W

   MUR
3. W

   IU
4. W

   BC
5. W

   NCSU
6. W

   ND
7. L

   PITT
8. W

   DUKE
9. W

   VT
10. W

    UVA
11. W

    MIA
12. L

    UK
13. L

    FSU
14. L

    USC

What moved it, 2023

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+1.21
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.84

Game by game

• GTW 39-34 at GT70% → 66%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position −4
• MURW 56-0 vs MUR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• IUW 21-14 at IU76% → 95%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• BCW 56-28 vs BC82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• NCSUW 13-10 at NCSU59% → 94%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• NDW 33-20 vs ND31% → 99%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +2
• PITTL 21-38 at PITT70% → 0%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts −2
• DUKEW 23-0 vs DUKE57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +42, Clock −1
• VTW 34-3 vs VT72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29
• UVAW 31-24 vs UVA91% → 97%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +15
• MIAW 38-31 at MIA40% → 89%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +47, Clock +4
• UKL 31-38 vs UK68% → 5%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• FSUL 6-16 at FSU41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• USCL 28-42 at USC53% → 1%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −44, 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.