UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.029th
  Defense+0.1165th
• 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.
  Offense39.0%17th
  Defense40.0%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.077th
  Defense+1.2338th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.091st
  Defense+0.1239th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1019th
  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.
  Offense44.3%22nd
  Defense45.1%65th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.4%17th
  Defense30.4%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.4512th
  Defense2.8550th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%49th
  Defense21.2%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%81st
  Defense1.7%31st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 UL Monroe 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
   WAKE
2. W
   IDHO
3. L
   LSU
4. W
   TROY
5. L
   ARST
6. L
   UK
7. L
   TXST
8. L
   TA&M
9. L
   APP
10. L
    UL
11. W
    NMSU
12. L
    GASO

Bars above the line: better than expected for UL Monroe.

Players, 2014

1. Pete ThomasQB501 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 30th of 199 QBs
   1.94WAR1.14 to 2.74
2. Rashon CeaserWR94 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 26th of 469 WRs
   0.31WAR0.19 to 0.44
3. Justin MantonP82 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 1st of 94 punters
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.40
4. Centarius DonaldRB154 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 77th of 350 RBs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.38
5. Kenzee JacksonWR112 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 56th of 469 WRs
   0.22WAR0.07 to 0.37
6. Ajalen HolleyWR76 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 67th of 469 WRs
   0.21WAR0.07 to 0.34
7. Tyler CainWR94 plays · +0.011 pts/play · 404th of 469 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.05 to 0.10
8. Kaylon WatsonRB5 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 300th of 350 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 UL Monroe'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 UL Monroe's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.25 of the 0.33 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 TA&MQ4 6:48 4th & 5 at TA&M 40, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. at APPQ4 12:39 4th & 3 at APP 45, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs IDHOQ4 9:54 4th & 1 at ULM 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at GASOQ3 9:27 4th & 1 at ULM 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
5. at NMSUQ3 13:04 4th & 1 at ULM 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
6. at APPQ4 6:04 4th & 5 at APP 11, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
7. vs WAKEQ3 1:47 4th & 2 at WAKE 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
8. vs TXSTQ2 3:52 4th & 1 at ULM 37, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

83rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   WAKE
2. W

   IDHO
3. L

   LSU
4. W

   TROY
5. L

   ARST
6. L

   UK
7. L

   TXST
8. L

   TA&M
9. L

   APP
10. L

    UL
11. W

    NMSU
12. L

    GASO

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at UL Monroe'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−0.52
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.31

Game by game

• WAKEW 17-10 vs WAKE36% → 97%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• IDHOW 38-31 vs IDHO81% → 90%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• LSUL 0-31 at LSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• TROYW 22-20 vs TROY79% → 88%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• ARSTL 14-28 at ARST26% → 2%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +1
• UKL 14-48 at UK7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• TXSTL 18-22 vs TXST53% → 6%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• TA&ML 16-21 at TA&M3% → 4%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −8, Timeouts −1
• APPL 29-31 at APP42% → 21%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position −3
• ULL 27-34 vs UL30% → 4%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• NMSUW 30-17 at NMSU70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• GASOL 16-22 at GASO17% → 15%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position +2

Points of win probability, from UL Monroe's side.

Closest call

LIB 28-31 ULM (2021) - UL Monroe dropped to a 2.6% win probability before pulling it out.