Louisville

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2590th
  Defense+0.1244th
• 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.
  Offense46.4%83rd
  Defense40.2%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3588th
  Defense+1.3520th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1468th
  Defense+0.0272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3694th
  Defense+0.2133rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%73rd
  Defense43.7%78th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.8%95th
  Defense32.7%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0959th
  Defense2.9061st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%62nd
  Defense21.2%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.7%86th
  Defense16.3%52nd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   APSU
2. W
   JXST
3. W
   GT
4. L
   ND
5. L
   SMU
6. W
   UVA
7. L
   MIA
8. W
   BC
9. W
   CLEM
10. L
    STAN
11. W
    PITT
12. W
    UK
13. W
    WASH

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2024

1. Tyler ShoughQB345 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 40th of 232 QBs
   1.76WAR1.25 to 2.33
2. Isaac BrownRB159 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 74th of 373 RBs
   0.33WAR0.21 to 0.44
3. Ja'Corey BrooksWR51 plays · +0.324 pts/play · 8th of 452 WRs
   0.31WAR0.19 to 0.45
4. Chris BellWR40 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 97th of 452 WRs
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.23
5. Duke WatsonRB48 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 220th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
6. Don ChaneyRB49 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 254th of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Brock TravelsteadPK18 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 76th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
8. Mark RedmanTE23 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 60th of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.10

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73973936th of 131Roster talent: 739, 36th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819842nd of 131Recruiting: 198, 42nd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  15%15%123rd of 130Returning production: 15%, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.6+13.621st of 131SP+ rating: +13.6, 21st of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.16 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 STANQ4 0:10 4th & 10 at STAN 45, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.0 pts
2. at CLEMQ3 6:47 4th & 1 at CLEM 23, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. vs SMUQ4 2:34 4th & 17 at SMU 19, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
4. vs MIAQ3 2:10 4th & 7 at LOU 28, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
5. at NDQ4 11:25 4th & 7 at ND 39, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at UKQ2 13:00 4th & 3 at UK 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at UKQ2 4:45 4th & 4 at UK 4, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at BCQ4 14:46 4th & 3 at LOU 36, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

30th of 134 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

   APSU
2. W

   JXST
3. W

   GT
4. L

   ND
5. L

   SMU
6. W

   UVA
7. L

   MIA
8. W

   BC
9. W

   CLEM
10. L

    STAN
11. W

    PITT
12. W

    UK
13. W

    WASH

What moved it, 2024

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+1.51
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.46

Game by game

• APSUW 62-0 vs APSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• JXSTW 49-14 vs JXST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• GTW 31-19 vs GT66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• NDL 24-31 at ND28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• SMUL 27-34 vs SMU62% → 5%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• UVAW 24-20 at UVA64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• MIAL 45-52 vs MIA29% → 4%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• BCW 31-27 at BC63% → 85%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +37, Clock +3
• CLEMW 33-21 at CLEM15% → 96%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• STANL 35-38 at STAN86% → 4%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −82: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• PITTW 37-9 vs PITT64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −1
• UKW 41-14 at UK56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +1
• WASHW 35-34 at WASH47% → 93%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, 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.