Louisville

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1047th
  Defense−0.0695th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%68th
  Defense36.7%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2131st
  Defense+1.1877th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1679th
  Defense0.0075th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0923rd
  Defense−0.0897th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.6%82nd
  Defense43.5%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.9%24th
  Defense23.8%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7523rd
  Defense2.7470th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.6%10th
  Defense20.2%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.6%32nd
  Defense17.3%76th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   EKU
2. W
   JMU
3. W
   BGSU
4. W
   PITT
5. L
   UVA
6. W
   MIA
7. W
   BC
8. W
   VT
9. L
   CAL
10. L
    CLEM
11. L
    SMU
12. W
    UK
13. W
    TOL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2025

1. Miller MossQB378 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 43rd of 231 QBs
   1.48WAR0.74 to 2.06
2. Chris BellWR97 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 3rd of 451 WRs
   0.40WAR0.19 to 0.60
3. Keyjuan BrownRB86 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 140th of 365 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
4. Isaac BrownRB104 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 144th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.24
5. Cooper RanvierPK17 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 32nd of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. Duke WatsonRB49 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 241st of 365 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Caullin LacyWR84 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 251st of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.04 to 0.20
8. Dacari CollinsWR22 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 292nd of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70170150th of 134Roster talent: 701, 50th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419452nd of 134Recruiting: 194, 52nd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%67th of 132Returning production: 35%, 67th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.4+12.425th of 134SP+ rating: +12.4, 25th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.24 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 VTQ4 12:05 4th & 2 at VT 37, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.9 pts
2. vs CALQ4 0:01 4th & 12 at LOU 48, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−4.9 pts
3. at MIAQ3 10:58 4th & 3 at MIA 30, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at MIAQ2 0:04 4th & 2 at MIA 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs JMUQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at LOU 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs BCQ4 4:44 4th & 1 at LOU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at PITTQ3 6:55 4th & 7 at PITT 38, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at PITTQ4 0:18 4th & 16 at PITT 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

67th of 136 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

   EKU
2. W

   JMU
3. W

   BGSU
4. W

   PITT
5. L

   UVA
6. W

   MIA
7. W

   BC
8. W

   VT
9. L

   CAL
10. L

    CLEM
11. L

    SMU
12. W

    UK
13. W

    TOL

What moved it, 2025

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+0.79
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.30
• Timeouts−0.11
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.61

Game by game

• EKUW 51-17 vs EKU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• JMUW 28-14 vs JMU84% → 98%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• BGSUW 40-17 vs BGSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• PITTW 34-27 at PITT55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• UVAL 27-30 vs UVA68% → 11%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −52, Possession & field position −3
• MIAW 24-21 at MIA23% → 94%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +7
• BCW 38-24 vs BC94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• VTW 28-16 at VT74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• CALL 26-29 vs CAL89% → 28%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −33, Clock +20
• CLEML 19-20 vs CLEM49% → 5%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• SMUL 6-38 at SMU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37
• UKW 41-0 vs UK48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +48, Possession & field position +1
• TOLW 27-22 vs TOL72% → 95%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +1

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.