UL Monroe

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.0311th
  Defense+0.1237th
• 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.
  Offense35.8%6th
  Defense41.3%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2885th
  Defense+1.2427th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.123rd
  Defense+0.0358th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0320th
  Defense+0.2622nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.8%7th
  Defense44.7%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.
  Offense27.2%9th
  Defense34.4%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.241st
  Defense2.7363rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.5%24th
  Defense22.5%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.4%4th
  Defense1.7%33rd

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, 2015

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. L
   UGA
2. W
   NICH
3. L
   ALA
4. L
   GASO
5. L
   TLSA
6. L
   APP
7. L
   IDHO
8. L
   UL
9. L
   TROY
10. L
    ARST
11. L
    TXST
12. L
    HAW
13. W
    NMSU

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

Players, 2015

1. Garrett SmithQB230 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 100th of 205 QBs
   0.90WAR0.48 to 1.28
2. Earnest CarringtonQB130 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 159th of 205 QBs
   0.31WAR0.11 to 0.53
3. Marcus GreenWR78 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 88th of 411 WRs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.31
4. Ajalen HolleyWR71 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 89th of 411 WRs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.31
5. Kaylon WatsonRB82 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 175th of 333 RBs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
6. Chris QuallsP47 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 67th of 92 punters
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.13
7. Rashon CeaserWR10 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 355th of 411 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Harley ScioneauxTE13 plays · −0.012 pts/play · 40th of 189 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.02 to 0.02

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  293293123rd of 128Roster talent: 293, 123rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  101101117th of 128Recruiting: 101, 117th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%97th of 127Returning production: 44%, 97th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.7−14.7111th of 128SP+ rating: −14.7, 111th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 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 IDHOQ3 4:59 4th & 1 at ULM 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at HAWQ4 8:10 4th & 6 at HAW 11, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
3. at HAWQ3 2:20 4th & 6 at HAW 39, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at TXSTQ2 8:04 4th & 1 at ULM 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. at IDHOQ2 2:40 4th & 16 at IDHO 35, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. at ULQ3 3:58 4th & 2 at UL 17, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at IDHOQ4 9:13 4th & 6 at IDHO 8, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at TXSTQ2 5:25 4th & 2 at ULM 18, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

122nd 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. L

   UGA
2. W

   NICH
3. L

   ALA
4. L

   GASO
5. L

   TLSA
6. L

   APP
7. L

   IDHO
8. L

   UL
9. L

   TROY
10. L

    ARST
11. L

    TXST
12. L

    HAW
13. W

    NMSU

What moved it, 2015

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−2.39
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.40

Game by game

• UGAL 14-51 at UGA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• NICHW 47-0 vs NICH98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• ALAL 0-34 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• GASOL 31-51 vs GASO30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• TLSAL 24-34 at TLSA26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• APPL 14-59 vs APP23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −30
• IDHOL 13-27 at IDHO59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −1
• ULL 24-30 at UL24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• TROYL 14-51 at TROY31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32
• ARSTL 21-59 vs ARST16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• TXSTL 3-16 at TXST31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −33
• HAWL 26-28 at HAW29% → 14%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• NMSUW 42-35 vs NMSU54% → 95%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +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.