LSU

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+0.1977th
  Defense+0.1339th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%71st
  Defense41.4%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3067th
  Defense+1.3812th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0847th
  Defense+0.0943rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2675th
  Defense+0.1746th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.1%62nd
  Defense47.1%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.9%86th
  Defense30.4%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9537th
  Defense2.9063rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%59th
  Defense18.5%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%84th
  Defense17.8%68th

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 LSU 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
   USC
2. W
   NICH
3. W
   SC
4. W
   UCLA
5. W
   USA
6. W
   MISS
7. W
   ARK
8. L
   TA&M
9. L
   ALA
10. L
    FLA
11. W
    VAN
12. W
    OU
13. W
    BAY

Bars above the line: better than expected for LSU.

Players, 2024

1. Garrett NussmeierQB444 plays · +0.295 pts/play · 7th of 232 QBs
   2.45WAR1.54 to 3.34
2. Caden DurhamRB140 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 62nd of 373 RBs
   0.35WAR0.24 to 0.45
3. Josh WilliamsRB135 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 86th of 373 RBs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.42
4. Kyren LacyWR68 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 30th of 452 WRs
   0.22WAR0.02 to 0.40
5. CJ DanielsWR37 plays · +0.274 pts/play · 46th of 452 WRs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.30
6. Damian RamosPK22 plays · +0.317 pts/play · 12th of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
7. Aaron AndersonWR64 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 145th of 452 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.05 to 0.27
8. Mason TaylorTE58 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 36th of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.06 to 0.23

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 LSU'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.
  9069069th of 131Roster talent: 906, 9th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2762766th of 131Recruiting: 276, 6th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  20%20%117th of 130Returning production: 20%, 117th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.9+15.915th of 131SP+ rating: +15.9, 15th 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 LSU'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 0.10 of the 0.13 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 USCQ4 6:57 4th & 2 at LSU 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs USCQ3 11:27 4th & 1 at LSU 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. at SCQ4 8:56 4th & 1 at LSU 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. vs USCQ4 13:25 4th & 3 at LSU 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at ARKQ4 11:57 4th & 3 at ARK 30, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at SCQ2 4:28 4th & 3 at SC 11, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs OUQ4 14:47 4th & 4 at OU 4, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at TA&MQ3 4:53 4th & 7 at TA&M 29, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

42nd of 134 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up LSU's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   USC
2. W

   NICH
3. W

   SC
4. W

   UCLA
5. W

   USA
6. W

   MISS
7. W

   ARK
8. L

   TA&M
9. L

   ALA
10. L

    FLA
11. W

    VAN
12. W

    OU
13. W

    BAY

What moved it, 2024

Every game starts at LSU'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+0.76
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.22

Game by game

• USCL 20-27 vs USC62% → 9%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −52, Timeouts +4
• NICHW 44-21 vs NICH100% → 99%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +2
• SCW 36-33 at SC70% → 77%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• UCLAW 34-17 vs UCLA92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +14
• USAW 42-10 vs USA92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• MISSW 29-26 vs MISS35% → 85%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −24
• ARKW 34-10 at ARK58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• TA&ML 23-38 at TA&M42% → 1%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −1
• ALAL 13-42 vs ALA39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• FLAL 16-27 at FLA54% → 2%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• VANW 24-17 vs VAN78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +1
• OUW 37-17 vs OU64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position −1
• BAYW 44-31 vs BAY44% → 98%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from LSU's side.

Closest call

LSU 37-34 FLA (2020) - LSU dropped to a 6.6% win probability before pulling it out.